Halston Z-14 vintage - recent purchase

Sailor Dave

Member
Apr 7, 2011
My research shows that Arden signed Jeff Gordon in 2005 to endorse Z-14. But the scent was launched in 1976, so what is considered a truly vintage bottle? Would be nice to see the bottom label from a mid-70's product.
 

Sailor Dave

Member
Apr 7, 2011
Also found this. Interesting if true (NOT written by myself):

The original was manufactured in France by IFF, developed by the magical Vincent Marcello (who did Yatagan and Private Collection) and Max Gavarry, originally briefed with Bernard Chant, who ended up not working on the fragrance. It was brilliant and extremely expensive when it came out.

In 1983, everything was fudged. Halston sold out to J.C. Penney and the fragrance business was sold to Revlon (not a good choice at all). All Halston fragrances were immediately "reinterpreted," the original Halston perhaps suffering the worst. This is when they started being produced in America. In 1988 it was sold again to a Saudi company. I don't know where they were produced at this point, but absolutely not in the same Revlon factories. In 1994, it was sold once again to French Fragrances, Inc. It was severely reformulated again at this point. French Fragrances, Inc. then acquired Elizabeth Arden in 1999 and then became Elizabeth Arden, Inc. some years after that. I believe the 1999 reformulation was the one that stuck around until now, though there have been many tweaks since then.

I can't say I had experience with the reformulations between IFF and FF formulae, so I don't know which dramatic changes occurred in what year. All I know is that the bottle of Halston (original) I have pre- and post- Revlon is like night and day. The original is a smooth aldehydic chypre that has French upper crust all over it. The second is a nasty, cheap, bitter, revolting poison that I can't wear at all. Actually, it is this second formula that the French Fragrances and EA version is based off of, so maybe the Z14 produced by Revlon is likewise the one that stuck.

So it looks like a pre-1983 bottle wold be gold.
 

Paul P

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2012
Dave,

thanks for the information.

I can't help with a photo of a truly vintage bottle I'm afraid. Generally though, companies will have their name on the fragrance of vintage bottles, which doesn't occur with later editions. So for example, vintage Calvin Klein frags will have "Calvin Klein Fragrances", rather than Coty, which is what they have now. Or vintage Halston will have "Halston Fragrances", whilst they now have Elizabeth Arden. It doesn't always apply, but it's a good rule of thumb. One exception that I know of is vintage Polo, which can say "Ralph Lauren Fragrances", "Cosmair", or "Warner".

And I wouldn't rely too much on check cosmetics. It has been shown to be inaccurate many times.
 

Bigsly

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2008
Also found this. Interesting if true (NOT written by myself):

The original was manufactured in France by IFF, developed by the magical Vincent Marcello (who did Yatagan and Private Collection) and Max Gavarry, originally briefed with Bernard Chant, who ended up not working on the fragrance. It was brilliant and extremely expensive when it came out.

In 1983, everything was fudged. Halston sold out to J.C. Penney and the fragrance business was sold to Revlon (not a good choice at all). All Halston fragrances were immediately "reinterpreted," the original Halston perhaps suffering the worst. This is when they started being produced in America. In 1988 it was sold again to a Saudi company. I don't know where they were produced at this point, but absolutely not in the same Revlon factories. In 1994, it was sold once again to French Fragrances, Inc. It was severely reformulated again at this point. French Fragrances, Inc. then acquired Elizabeth Arden in 1999 and then became Elizabeth Arden, Inc. some years after that. I believe the 1999 reformulation was the one that stuck around until now, though there have been many tweaks since then.

I can't say I had experience with the reformulations between IFF and FF formulae, so I don't know which dramatic changes occurred in what year. All I know is that the bottle of Halston (original) I have pre- and post- Revlon is like night and day. The original is a smooth aldehydic chypre that has French upper crust all over it. The second is a nasty, cheap, bitter, revolting poison that I can't wear at all. Actually, it is this second formula that the French Fragrances and EA version is based off of, so maybe the Z14 produced by Revlon is likewise the one that stuck.

So it looks like a pre-1983 bottle wold be gold.

First, I suggest citing your source, because that is often crucial when assessing what someone has to say about a scent (in particular, one can read that person's reviews/posts to see what kind of preferences/bias might be present). Second, I have one by Halston, and it's not a smooth aldehydic chypre. In fact, I have yet to experience an aldehydic chypre I would describe as smooth! The closest, actually, might be Halston Limited, though I didn't get a lot of aldehydes there so I'm not sure it should be given such a designation. This claim that Z-14, in any form, was strong in aldehydes suggests to me that the person is not familiar with that genre, but of course it's always possible that a formulation was released with this quality at some point since the late 70s. As to my experience with the scent, the original was the softest and most complex (if the Halston one was the first, which I have assumed it is, regardless of which company made it for Halston). The others seem to be a bit more bitter or harsh and not quite as complex (the lavender note in particular seems out of balance), but I doubt many people would notice. The latest one, with the cinnamon blast to open it, is quite different, though the far drydown is clearly Z-14, if weaker.

UPDATE: It seems that this claim was made by Fragrantica member lovingthealien.
 
Last edited:

HankHarvey

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2014
I prefer and wear 1-12 over Z14, but can attest to a slight difference in EA versions based on variances in floral and moss notes. Never understood why 1-12 did not get as much attention as Z. To me it's the easier to wear of these.
 

Richie_B

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2005
Hey guys! Long time Z-14 fan here. Owned and wore it through the late 80's and my older brother owned and wore it from about '80 on up. I have an older bottle, 2.5 oz that smells pretty close to how I remember it. Bought that one about 1998 at a store liquidation. All this talk about reformulations had me curious, so I gambled $14 and bought a bottle from Marshalls. And yes, avter an hour, it smells like a fading wear of the vintage stuff, but it's a passing resemblance. Actually, when I tried it, I was reminded of a different scent. The newest one is much lighter, no oakmoss, and the leather is nonexistant. The woods and cinnamon are there, though, so when smelling the newest one, I am reminded of Jacques Bogart's Witness. Sounds wacky, but that's what I am getting.

Shame that the formula had to change! I remember wearing it and getting that initial blast of citrus and leather when first putting it on. Killer stuff! Well, what can ya do?
 

sjg3839

Well-known member
Aug 21, 2012
I understand the vintage version was nice. I purchased a bottle of the most recent version last week ($18.00). After sampling, I gave it away instantly! My girlfriend's son now owns it. Just too much going on with the newer version. A lot of lemon and other notes scrambled together. Would like to have sampled a vintage version.
 

Atlas3939

New member
Nov 29, 2015
Hi All,

I have worn Z-14 on and off from the 1980s-present and I simply love this old school juice. Most of the formulations from the 1980s thru 2000s contained Oakmoss and treemoss or just treemoss and they smell extremely the same. The version of Z-14 that Ea fragrances developed within recent years no longer contain Oakmoss or treemoss and is loaded with lemon and cinnamon from what I smell. Personally, I would not buy this version and would seek out older versions. I recently acquired a bottle made by Halston fragrances for very little cost and it appears to be from the 1970s and will be wearing it soon. Also, I've heard many positive reviews regarding Tom Fords Italian Cypress but still hesitant to purchase given the hefty price tag for which is technically Z-14 and a bit more refined. After researching, it turns out that Tom Ford was a fan of Halston Z-14. Anyhow, if you can find older bottles that contain some type of moss they should provide the Z-14 experience. All the best.
 
Last edited:

DEMON

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 8, 2010
The Jeff Gordon version is excellent. I can't say 100% for certain that it is as strong as the original, but it does last quite a while on me and the smell in mediately takes me back in time. I've never had any trouble finding it on eBay and it's not expensive.
 

cytherian

Well-known member
Nov 24, 2013
Anyone have any idea how old this Halston Z-14 is? Looks like it might be from the 1980's...

Halston_Z-14_label-1a.jpg


- - - Updated - - -

This one has the glass neck, no black plastic collar.
 

AouldFactory

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2015
Did you ever use Z 14 in the past and how does this stack up to it and compared to the current offerings from
EA?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone have any idea how old this Halston Z-14 is? Looks like it might be from the 1980's...

This one has the glass neck, no black plastic collar.

Did you ever use Z 14 in the past and how does this stack up to it and compared to the current offerings from
EA? I'm looking at a similar bottle as well???

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone have any idea how old this Halston Z-14 is? Looks like it might be from the 1980's...

Halston_Z-14_label-1a.jpg


- - - Updated - - -

This one has the glass neck, no black plastic collar.

Did you ever use Z 14 in the past and how does this stack up to it and compared to the current offerings from
EA? I'm looking at a similar bottle as well???
 

Professor Value

Well-known member
Feb 5, 2019
I just found my old 2.5 ounce French Fragrance natural spray bottle with 20% in it (and 50%+ matching aftershave bottle). I also found an unmarked mini 5-7 ml bottle with a few drops left. The former smells a bit off, but a drop from that mini, ah, that's the juice I remember from my early 80s college days.
 

Dantheman123

Active member
Dec 3, 2018
The vintage Halston Z-14 is incredible. Rich, spicey, smells of a fine red wine dried on side of a wine glass, cognac infused with herbal leaves and then the incredible oakmoss bomb. It's decadent. Not for wussy, but hairy chested men! This is what Mick Jagger wore to Studio 54. In fact, all the men wore it in Studio, so I'm told. The vintage said Halston Fragrances on the bottom of the bottle I believe.

Today in 2021, EA Fragrances turned Z-14 into lemon heads candy with some zingy Cinnamon notes. It's nice, but nothing, I MEAN NOTHING, like the original. Almost reminds me of that lemony furniture spray polish, Pledge. Lasts about 1-2 hours max.

The Jeff Gordon isn't too bad. It's closest to the original than today's stuff. Lasts about maybe 2-4 hours tops.

To enjoy the real Halston Z-14, look for the bottle that had the dark brown, screw off plastic refillable pump sprayer.

I got a 16oz glass vintage bottle of Halston Z-14 from an estate sale that was kept by a Halston representative. When she died, I bought the bottle. Incredibly rare. Oakmoss nuclear bomb. It's the real deal.
 

Hugh V.

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2016
It's decadent. Not for wussy, but hairy chested men! This is what Mick Jagger wore to Studio 54. In fact, all the men wore it in Studio, so I'm told. The vintage said Halston Fragrances on the bottom of the bottle I believe.
I can't imagine a bunch of people wearing Z-14 in a sweaty, crowded, club environment. It's a great fragrance, and it's simultaneously decadent and macho. But pure cold weather, outdoors type of scent imo.
 

Latest News

Top