Sample Pass: "Old ~vs~ New" Vertical Testings -- Join Us?

[Bavard]

LiveJazz's comparison of vintage Cuir de Russie edt and edc sounds just right to describe the differences between vintage Diorling edt and edc.

 

[CookBot]

What I was doing testing Aramis, I cannot begin to tell you.

Cannot? Or will not?
😉

 

[LiveJazz]

Fahrenheit 411 (har har)

Vintage 1989 vs 2015:

This will be fairly short, as I honestly don't think there's too much to contrast with this one. Dior have done a great job maintaining Fahrenheit. I'll skip the poetic description of what Fahrenheit is fundamentally about...that has been done plenty around here. Here are the differences I perceive:

When side by side, the opening of the 1989 version smells slightly grassier and more floral, and maybe touch sweeter/richer (more ripe citrus?) on top. That jasmine/hawthorn/honeysuckle is clear here, and more demure/dried out in the modern one. I own a modern bottle about the same age as Iso's (2015-ish) and always associated Fahrenheit with a dry and dusty yard and yardshed. I'd say vintage has a very similar general effect, but maybe there's been a little more rain over the last month, and the grass and flowers don't smell quite so thirsty.

It also seems like the modern version jumps into its woody-leather base more quickly, and the feel of the base is a touch smoother and sliiiightly more ambery/resinous, whereas the vintage relies more on a bitter-black leather note is more pointed and sparse in comparison. Modern is marginally more powerful and seems to last longer on my skin.

I am pointing out a number of differences, but again, they are small, and I have to look for them....they do not jump out, even in direct comparison. Kudos to Dior, and glad I don't have to vintage hunt.

 

[Toxicon]

Fahrenheit 411 (har har)

Vintage 1989 vs 2015:

This will be fairly short, as I honestly don't think there's too much to contrast with this one. Dior have done a great job maintaining Fahrenheit. I'll skip the poetic description of what Fahrenheit is fundamentally about...that has been done plenty around here. Here are the differences I perceive:

When side by side, the opening of the 1989 version smells slightly grassier and more floral, and maybe touch sweeter/richer on top. That jasmine/hawthorn/honeysuckle is clear here, and more demure/dried out in the modern one. I own a modern bottle about the same age as Iso's (2015-ish) and always associated Fahrenheit with a dry and dusty yard and yardshed. I'd say vintage has a very similar general effect, but maybe there's been a little more rain over the last month, and the grass and flowers don't smell quite so thirsty.

It also seems like the modern version jumps into its woody-leather base more quickly, and the feel of the base is a touch smoother and sliiiightly more ambery/resinous, whereas the vintage relies more on a bitter-black leather note is more pointed and sparse in comparison. Modern is marginally more powerful and seems to last longer on my skin.

I am pointing out a number of differences, but again, they are small, and I have to look for them....they do not jump out, even in direct comparison. Kudos to Dior, and glad I don't have to vintage hunt.

Looking forward to comparing these to my 2020 or 2021 bottle (need to revisit and pin down the batch date). I love Fahrenheit but find it’s easy to go nose blind if I spray too close to my face - similar to a lot of other ISO E heavy scents. At the same time, my current bottle smells almost exactly how I remember my step-dad’s late 80s bottle smelling - my pet theory is that people who complain about terrible longevity or drastic batch differences are probably going nose blind. Or perhaps just embellishing their memories of the initial shock of the Petrol note into something much beastlier than reality.

In any event, it’s a classic I look forward to revisiting.

 

[grayspoole]

Cannot? Or will not?
😉

No, really, I haven’t a clue. But I remember it very well.

No one in my family wore perfume, so I guess I was smelling scents in the store out of desperation…or deprivation.

 

[LiveJazz]

No, really, I haven’t a clue. But I remember it very well.

No one in my family wore perfume, so I guess I was smelling scents in the store out of desperation…or deprivation.

Ha, I relate. Being naturally inclined to smelly things in a family who is oblivious to them was an odd experience.

My grandmother had a few minis that I would sniff avidly - but I’m not sure I even realized men’s scents (outside of deodorants and aftershaves) existed until fairly late adolescence.

 

[N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer]

View attachment 325583

Source bottles for the Cuir de Russie samples.

Chanel Cuir de Russie:

Vintage EDT:
Prior to this sampling, I had only worn the modern Cuir de Russie EDP. I no longer have any to compare directly, but from memory, the EDT smells much more aldehydic and sharp off the top, and then quickly more leather dominant. The leather itself also feels sharper and more assertive here, more black and bitter in tone, where as the EDP's leather is plush, soft and somewhat sweet. The EDP also features more surrounding soft florals (primarily iris). This is really about the leather, front and center, with little introductory fanfare. It's a wonderful leather note, kind of chewy and supple at the same time, and little rubbery, subtly animalic. In some ways, this actually feels a bit more modern to me than the modern EDP, in that it is more focused and sleek, and as a result reminds me of some excellent modern leathers like Dior Cuir Cannage and Hermes Cuir d'Ange.

This is my favorite version of the 3 I have now smelled.

Vintage EDC:
The vintage EDC, in contrast, is brighter and more aldehydic. The opening florals are strong, sharpish, and a bit grassy/green: probably some galbanum. Smells more typically vintage. This is uplifting and zingy. I'd say there's less of a direct leather tone here, and more of a mixed animalic that possibly uses a good dose of civet to add a bit of sharpness via a urinous-honey effect. The overall effect is higher pitched, whereas the EDT settles into a throaty leathery purr right away. I previously owned a vintage No 5 EDC, and from memory, this reminds me more of that than it does either the Cuir de Russie EDT or EDP. I'd peg it as more of an aldehydic floral than a leather, though of course it is both. It just stays more on the floral end of the spectrum for a pretty long time to my nose, with the leather making its appearance deeper in the base, and mixed with more other stuff.

Interestingly, toward the tail end of their evolutions, the EDT comes to resemble what I recall of the EDP base (softer, ambery), and the EDC comes to resemble the EDT base (more distinctly leathery).

I discovered Guerlain's version of Cuir de Russie not too long ago and it was a winner for me. I wish there was room in the pass to compare Guerlain's version of Cuir de Russie. I'm finding it a struggle to see which one I prefer more since they are quality leathers each in their own right.

 

[LiveJazz]

Aramis Havanas
Like Fahrenheit, vintage (mid 90s) and modern (2015, Gentleman's Collection bottle) Havana smell astonishingly close. Havana is a spicy aromatic fougere with a drop of rum booziness and tobacco. Often called a "tobacco scent", but I don't really agree with that as a primary categorization. It is a fougere first - along the lines of contemporaries such as Montana (coming up), Cartier Pasha, Lanvin for Men, and RL Safari for Men. The alcoholic and tobacco layers are more of a sweetening and smoothing agent within the fougere context. The top is BIG and LOUD. It's a bit of cacophony of notes. It's not unpleasant, it's just a powerful, attention-grabbing opening, all pointy edges with sharp spices, soapy citruses and greens, a slap of bright leather, and towering aromatics. The opening will fill a room, and I admit, can some across as a little bit "80s-90s cologne guy" -ish....long live Cologne Guy.

As Havana heads into its heart and base, it develops a uniquely easygoing demeanor for this genre, glowing off the skin warmly -- a big turnaround from what came before. The main difference between vintage and modern is speed which which that mellowing occurs. The vintage seems to retain more of its aggressive opening attributes for longer, and the base seems to retain a more bitter/mossy/spicy/smoky edge. The modern version calms down fairly quickly and displays slightly more tobacco sweetness and warmth. I also think the modern version uses more anise on top for a touch of sweet coolness. Vintage has a teensy bit more leather (birch tar), particularly on top. Generally, vintage smells "hotter". Again, really close, and these differences are only evident to me with close comparative sniffing. Performance is similar, with the vintage perhaps having a slight edge.

Montana Parfum d'Homme
Montana, compared to Havana, is more of a big, thick, straightforward spicy fougere. Their openings have a similar overall tone, with Havana feeling spicier, sharper, more citric, greener, while Montana has this "heft" and roundness to it, with riper citrus, a soft layer with florals are aren't really present in Havana, and less overall prickliness and energy. The spice profile is more plush and warm. It sits more squarely in the center of this style, stating its intent to be a Warm Aromatic Fougere plainly and without extraneous flourishes. If these two were brothers, Havana would host big loud parties, and Montana would host conferences. It has a certain seriousness and directness it that isn't present in Havana.

After the opening and early heart Montana remains round, dry, mossy-leathery, and Havana really leans into the smooth tobacco and booze tones in comparison. As a result, Havana is more dynamic and entertaining in its evolution from brash spicy explosion to boozy-tobacco-soft. Wearing side by side really exposes the contrast, and also highlights the rich leathery aspect of Montana's base - something I don't detect as clearly wearing it solo.

I really like them both, but if I had to pick one, it has to be Havana, because I think its evolution is more interesting to experience, and love that warm mellow tobacco glow at the end. That said, Montana is an exquisite specimen in the genre, and it's tough to find any fault with materials or composition.

 

[Toxicon]

Aramis Havanas
Like Fahrenheit, vintage (mid 90s) and modern (2015, Gentleman's Collection bottle) Havana smell astonishingly close. Havana is a spicy aromatic fougere with a drop of rum booziness and tobacco. Often called a "tobacco scent", but I don't really agree with that as a primary categorization. It is a fougere first - along the lines of contemporaries such as Montana (coming up), Cartier Pasha, Lanvin for Men, and RL Safari for Men. The alcoholic and tobacco layers are more of a sweetening and smoothing agent within the fougere context. The top is BIG and LOUD. It's a bit of cacophony of notes. It's not unpleasant, it's just a powerful, attention-grabbing opening, all pointy edges with sharp spices, soapy citruses and greens, a slap of bright leather, and towering aromatics. The opening will fill a room, and I admit, can some across as a little bit "80s-90s cologne guy" -ish....long live Cologne Guy.

As Havana heads into its heart and base, it develops a uniquely easygoing demeanor for this genre, glowing off the skin warmly -- a big turnaround from what came before. The main difference between vintage and modern is speed which which that mellowing occurs. The vintage seems to retain more of its aggressive opening attributes for longer, and the base seems to retain a more bitter/mossy/spicy/smoky edge. The modern version calms down fairly quickly and displays slightly more tobacco sweetness and warmth. I also think the modern version uses more anise on top for a touch of sweet coolness. Vintage has a teensy bit more leather (birch tar), particularly on top. Generally, vintage smells "hotter". Again, really close, and these differences are only evident to me with close comparative sniffing. Performance is similar, with the vintage perhaps having a slight edge.

Montana Parfum d'Homme
Montana, compared to Havana, is more of a big, thick, straightforward spicy fougere. Their openings have a similar overall tone, with Havana feeling spicier, sharper, more citric, greener, while Montana has this "heft" and roundness to it, with riper citrus, a soft layer with florals are aren't really present in Havana, and less overall prickliness and energy. The spice profile is more plush and warm. It sits more squarely in the center of this style, stating its intent to be a Warm Aromatic Fougere plainly and without extraneous flourishes. If these two were brothers, Havana would host big loud parties, and Montana would host conferences. It has a certain seriousness and directness it that isn't present in Havana.

After the opening and early heart Montana remains round, dry, mossy-leathery, and Havana really leans into the smooth tobacco and booze tones in comparison. As a result, Havana is more dynamic and entertaining in its evolution from brash spicy explosion to boozy-tobacco-soft. Wearing side by side really exposes the contrast, and also highlights the rich leathery aspect of Montana's base - something I don't detect as clearly wearing it solo.

I really like them both, but if I had to pick one, it has to be Havana, because I think its evolution is more interesting to experience, and love that warm mellow tobacco glow at the end. That said, Montana is an exquisite specimen in the genre, and it's tough to find any fault with materials or composition.

Havana is insane - I love it for what it is, but it’s a weird one. I’ve got a bottle from the Gentleman’s Collection era (I believe 2012), and definitely curious to try vintage for fun. It really does feel like multiple disparate frafrances grafted together. In my mind there’s a soapy lavender & tobacco fougere up top (very similar to the earlier Roger & Gallet Open); just a whiff of the classic Aramis leather chypre DNA; and a full-blown sweet & spicy bay rum drydown that gives an impression of sweetened pipe tobacco. I think of rum-drunk pirates more than Cuban cigars, personally. The transition is bizarre, but I like each stage for what it is. (Definitely earns some strange looks from my wife.)

 

[Bavard]

I really like them both, but if I had to pick one, it has to be Havana, because I think its evolution is more interesting to experience, and love that warm mellow tobacco glow at the end. That said, Montana is an exquisite specimen in the genre, and it's tough to find any fault with materials or composition.

Do you think your Gengis Khan edt is in this genre? It comes to mind for me, plus Salvador Dali for Men and Bogart Witness. I have kept vintage Havana and Witness in my collection as my favorites of the style.

 

[LiveJazz]

Do you think your Gengis Khan edt is in this genre? It comes to mind for me, plus Salvador Dali for Men and Bogart Witness. I have kept vintage Havana and Witness in my collection as my favorites of the style.

In my mental map, I group Genghis Khan and Witness more as woody-spicy than spicy aromatic fougere, though both (especially Genghis Khan in its early phases) straddle the line. They seem sweeter and woodier than either Havana or Montana, but closer to Montana in overall nature, due to Montana's smoothness and warm spice.

Salvadar Dali...hmmm, that one is very much its own situation. Smoky floral rubbery fermented fougere? I see as outside of any clear genre definition. Or Black is sort of like that too (in that it is hard to categorize but has fougere attributes), but SD is even further afield, and more strange.

 

[CookBot]

Salvador Dali...hmmm, that one is very much its own situation. Smoky floral rubbery fermented fougere?

Another one to consider for some future "Sui Generis Sample Pass".

 

[LiveJazz]

Another one to consider for some future "Sui Generis Sample Pass".

Or I could sneak it in here, since we’re down a few samples from the original plan. Could make an interesting comparison with Or Black. If folks are interested. I already snuck C&S Cuba in vs Havana

 

[Tea_Lilly]

I'm really looking forward to exploring the various Cabs as I've only tried the 2019 reforms. I'm expecting to learn a lot, even if I don't have a deep well of leather chypre experience to compare against.

I can, however, compare them against vintage Aramis, which I've tried in a couple variations - I had a decant of late 90s - early 2000s Aramis Cologne, and currently have 30 ml from an even better batch from 1990. For fun, I've worn modern Cab on one arm and vintage Aramis on the other; even though they're obviously different scents, the compositional overlap was still striking (at least to my inexperienced nose), particularly in the base. I hadn't thought of the modern Cab EDP as suedeish per se, but I wonder if that's the subtle roundness in the base I'm associating with a vague "amber" note. In any event, lots to look forward to!

I would very much agree with you that there is a subtle roundness in the current Cabochard edp.

 

[PStoller]

Gotta say, I don’t find Gengis Khan, Havana, and Witness to be much alike. Witness in particular is an outlier in my mind, as I like the others and don’t care for the Bogart at all. (So far, Witness is the only offering from the house that I haven’t liked, with the caveat that I’ve only tried older Bogarts.) Likewise, C&S Cuba is a very different animal, though I could wrap my head around the idea that it’s a mash-up of Witness and Or Black, if I had to.

Closer examination could change my mind about any of this.

 

[LiveJazz]

C&S Cuba - I mainly wanted to jot down a few notes on this vs Havana because to me, it represents a distillation of the softness and boozy-tobacco-ness of Havanas base, without the aggressive spicy fougere attributes. It is pure mellow tropical party vibes, presented in a fairly mature way. It starts with a very clear lime-rum-mint combination, but avoids going pure mojito with the addition of a good classic bay rum backbone. Pretty simple, very effective. As it dries (which happens pretty quickly), a soft woody tobacco musky accord comes to the front, and like Havana, it has this easy glow, tropical but not trite.

Or Black:

Here's an example of a reissue that keeps the basic intent of the original intact, and is very good, but includes some obvious differences. At its core, Or Black is...hard to pin down. A smooth partnership fougere, a fresh violet, a borderline petrol-ish leather, a soft woody. The calibration of those attributes changes from modern to vintage, but the basic combination and the quality is intact. The outcome is: vintage Or Black is more leather dominant, darker, almost gothic. When I had only smelled the reissue, reviewing describing Or Black as uncompromising and dark confused me, because the reissue is far more about anise and vioet on top: soft and sweetly green.

In short, vintage: violet black leather; modern one: herbal-violet-foug-etiver, softer leather. More powdery and bright, less gothic, but still dense and complex. Comparing to others in the leather-violet arena, vintage is a little more like Fahrenheit in overall personality (but cooler), and modern is more like Jolie Madame, both mixed with a bit of smooth woody fougere.

 

[relus]

Next time it would be cool to add deep vintage Trussardi Uomo against later versions, im curieus how different people judge it.

 

[grayspoole]

Salvadar Dali...hmmm, that one is very much its own situation. Smoky floral rubbery fermented fougere? I see as outside of any clear genre definition. Or Black is sort of like that too (in that it is hard to categorize but has fougere attributes), but SD is even further afield, and more strange.

Another one to consider for some future "Sui Generis Sample Pass".

Or I could sneak it in here, since we’re down a few samples from the original plan. Could make an interesting comparison with Or Black. If folks are interested. I already snuck C&S Cuba in vs Havana

You wouldn’t have to sneak it in for me, since I already own and enjoy vintage Salvador Dali Pour Homme. Your notes on Or Black really make it sound like a relative of SD, and I am looking forward to the sampling the vintage and reissued versions.

 

[PStoller]

You wouldn’t have to sneak it in for me, since I already own and enjoy vintage Salvador Dali Pour Homme. Your notes on Or Black really make it sound like a relative of SD, and I am looking forward to the sampling the vintage and reissued versions.

I have both Or Black editions and Salvador Dali pour Homme, as well, so it’ll be easy to extend my comparisons.

 

[CookBot]

Or I could sneak it in here, since we’re down a few samples from the original plan. Could make an interesting comparison with Or Black. If folks are interested. I already snuck C&S Cuba in vs Havana

I wouldn't kick it out of bed. Opposite of Grayspoole, I own both Or Black versions but no Dali, and it sounds pretty intriguing.

Some years ago I swore I'd never get involved with a pass that contained more than 12 samples, since I just found it overwhelming, but this one is obviously going to test my limits!

 

[CookBot]

We have another member joining us today: Say hello to new passer Dorje123. He'll be joining the lineup between PStoller and Tea_Lily.

 

[Dorje123]

We have another member joining us today: Say hello to new passer Dorje123. He'll be joining the lineup between PStoller and Tea_Lily.

Glad I saw the thread in time, and thanks very much for your generosity as well as the others who have contributed to this sample pass!

 

[LiveJazz]

Jumping around again, going to the Moustaches while I wear the Old Spices today:

Vintage EDC
Now here is a proper dirty citrus. If you want a good reference point for what people are talking about when they say "sweaty citrus", here it is. YSL Pour Homme, move over to the kiddie table, daddy's here. The overall demeanor is very much classic Roudnitska; you can't mistake his style. I find this iteration of Moustache to be right in a nice sweet spot, in the stylistic "middle" of this works, if you will: Brighter and less leather-powder oriented than Eau d'Hermes, but more aggressively musked and civeted than Eau Sauvage. There is a human mustiness to, in a good way...the comforting mustiness of grandpa's closest. The backbone is an assertive, solid, warm mossy-animalic accord that retains enough of the opening zest to avoid a complete fall into musky plushness. The closest parallel I can think of is Monsieur Lanvin, which we've featured in prior vintage sample passes. I don't think I've smelled those two head to head yet...maybe I'll follow up with some notes on that.

Vintage EDT Concentree
This version goes a little over the sharp-urinous edge for me. I wouldn't say its any dirtier, per se, but the piercing qualities of the opening citrus and surrounding notes are turned up past my personal tolerance level, and don't seem to let up. Its similar in most ways to the earlier EDC, but things just smell a little off balance in comparison, and harsher. It's like someone took the EDC's carefully calibrated weighting between the opening fireworks and the heft of the base, and decided to lob an extra bag of decaying limes and a civet cat with particularly moist glands on top of everything. A lot of people appreciate this, and I don't blame them. It certainly makes a statement...but I find it a little too brash, and in the end, tiresome to wear.

"Original 1949", the Confusingly Named 2018 EDT Re-Release
I smelled this several days ago and didn't write notes in real time, so from memory: This is totally lovely. Much better than I anticipated. Yes, it removes all or nearly all of the unwashed elements of any vintage version of Moutache I've smelled, but that's OK. As is, this is a near perfect sharp citrus aromatic summertime selection. Nothing about this smells off kilter or obviously synthetic. It's an unsweetened lemon-lime-aromatic cocktail that lasts the better part of a day. Many reviews mention the citrus opening being "candied". I'll be interested to get others' takes on this. To me, the citruses smell realistic and juicy, and maybe a little soapy, but definitely not artificially sweetened. Comparing against the vintage EDC, the base is more crisp, clean and woody in overall character. The base is typical of cleaner scents in this genre, such as Monsieur Givenchy, which is one of my favorites. In fact - I haven't done a head to head, but this seems impressively close to my vintage Monsieur de Givenchy, which is high praise. Their core accords run very much in parallel, with the Givenchy being a bit warmer overall.

Eau de Parfum 2018:
A smooth, sweet, modern composition which has precisely nothing to do with the original or the modern EDT. Follows in the footsteps of other Parfum/EDP takes on vintage masculines, which in reality share little other than the name. Eau Sauvage Parfum and Fahrenheit Parfum are notable (and better) examples of the trend. They all seem to use a similar base equation involving smooth woods and/or patchouli and puffy, diffusive vanillic notes. Rose is listed; I don't smell it. There is a slightly boozy haze. It's one of those scents that is a uniform block of pleasant woody-floral synthy sweetness. I can't pick out specifics within the broad strokes, which is typical for me with these types of compositions. It's nice enough - the ACs here aren't abrasive - but doesn't stand out. Good for blending into a crowd. If one is seeking an on-trend modern crowdpleaser, you could do a lot worse. But as an enthusiast, big yawn.

 

[CookBot]

"Original 1949", the Confusingly Named 2018 EDT Re-Release
I smelled this several days ago and didn't write notes in real time, so from memory: This is totally lovely. Much better than I anticipated.

It makes me ridiculously happy when someone praises this reformulation. I started banging the drum for it almost as soon as it came out, and it still takes pride of place among my vintage eaux de colognes in the summer. Yes, it eschews that pissy quality of the old Moustache that many vintage hounds lament, and it's probably a pretty far distance from Roudnitska's original intent, but it does such a good job of standing on its own feet that I can't feel sad about it. Plus, it gets my vote for best male scent bottle design in the 21st century so far, a pleasure to hold in the hand and a perfect tribute to the original Moustache bottle.

Its sibling EDP, though, I don't have much use for at all. As LJ says, it's inoffensive, but its sweet woody type is a dime a dozen today.

 

[Tea_Lilly]

Glad I saw the thread in time, and thanks very much for your generosity as well as the others who have contributed to this sample pass!

@Dorje123 - so glad that you could join us!

 

[LiveJazz]

Old Spice - Early American
I love these old school oriental barbershop floral scents. Coming to this hobby not previously being familiar with this style, I find it amusing that such scents represented the default masculine smell for so many for so long. Stetson, Wild Country, Old Spice, Tabac Original...I am a sucker for the whole crew, with Tabac Original and Wild Country at the soapier and muskier ends of the spectrum, respectively, being my personal champions. Old Spice sits in the middle of those two in overall tone, and of course it smells great. Rich candied citrus and cinnamon-clove warm spices, soft florals dominated by carnation to my nose (but the cooling-sweet presence of jasmine is also key), and base that is very nicely constructed...mostly a musky amber accord, but there's a little extended brightness which I suppose we can attribute to the listed frankincense and benzoin notes. A bitterness that must be a bit of moss. Could almost be mistaken for a vintage Caron in the base....Bellodgia, anyone? Maybe I'm being hyperbolic. Smells good, 'nuff said.

Old Spice - new
This is recognizably the same scent as the EA, but brighter, lighter weight, more synthetic. Opening citrus accord is almost like sherbet. Of the florals I can pick out, I think this version probably has more heliotrope...pretty sure part of the sweet brightness is the signature sugared almond effect of that note. The effect is polished, and pleasant, but also washed out and lacking definition and weight. Definitely simpler, less spice. The base comes quickly and is quite light. It is mostly soapy white musks, little of the musky wood-and-incense depth of the EA.

 

[PStoller]

Old Spice - OG sample source.

 

[LiveJazz]

Diorella!

Vintage EDT:
Core Diorella goodness. It goes on with those classic damp flowers and rotting melons right in your face. Good stuff. Maybe the original "watery" scent: Diorella has always reminded me of flowers and reedy greens growing at the side of a pond or languid stream, on a humid day, where the air is impregnated with that texture and smell, you know? This version was Roudnitska's clear inspiration for his later (and last) scent, Ocean Rain, which even further accentuates the heavy-damp-floral textural thing. What more can be said? A total classic. The base brings more moss and vetiver into focus, but that basic heavy-wet-melon-flower thing somehow extends right to the end, making it unmistakable. Overall, I'll call this is "sweaty-mossy" version.

Vintage Parfum:
Very similar to the vintage EDT in most ways. It is of course a little more tenacious on skin. The main difference I detect in the smell itself is I believe a stronger spicy presence. The notes list carnation and clove, which I don't particularly notice in other versions, but seem very plausible in the parfum. The base also seems a touch warmer and earthier, maybe oriented a bit more toward patchouli-oakmoss, where the EDT would perhaps be more vetiver-oakmoss...just a little brighter. Both versions with just a touch of vanilla and musk to smooth things out...neither vintage reads as sweeter or rounder to me. Really very close in most respects. This is the "spicy-earthy" version.

Modern EDT:
A big departure from either vintage version, but a good job regardless. This version is immediately more green, citric, dry, aromatic and peppery to my nose. Those classic wet florals and overripe melons are toned way, way down here. It's a really great opening, I have to say, and something I'd wear happily...but if I were smelling this in isolation, I'm honestly not sure I'd immediately peg it as Diorella, particularly as my primary reference point until this pass has been the vintage parfum. As it dries, the basic theme continues: this is a woody, vetiver centric evolution, and the overall effect is clean and soapy vs ripe and sweaty. The crisp peppery-spice continues. The base seems mostly about vetiver and dry patchouli - quite a woody base- with little of that bready texture of moss. This could very easily be marketed masculine, and probably a lot of guys would take to it easily if they tried it. Here we have the "zesty" version.

All three excellent, even if the modern is a departure.

 

[IsoESuperman]

Fahrenheit 411 (har har)

Vintage 1989 vs 2015:

This will be fairly short, as I honestly don't think there's too much to contrast with this one. Dior have done a great job maintaining Fahrenheit. I'll skip the poetic description of what Fahrenheit is fundamentally about...that has been done plenty around here. Here are the differences I perceive:

When side by side, the opening of the 1989 version smells slightly grassier and more floral, and maybe touch sweeter/richer (more ripe citrus?) on top. That jasmine/hawthorn/honeysuckle is clear here, and more demure/dried out in the modern one. I own a modern bottle about the same age as Iso's (2015-ish) and always associated Fahrenheit with a dry and dusty yard and yardshed. I'd say vintage has a very similar general effect, but maybe there's been a little more rain over the last month, and the grass and flowers don't smell quite so thirsty.

It also seems like the modern version jumps into its woody-leather base more quickly, and the feel of the base is a touch smoother and sliiiightly more ambery/resinous, whereas the vintage relies more on a bitter-black leather note is more pointed and sparse in comparison. Modern is marginally more powerful and seems to last longer on my skin.

I am pointing out a number of differences, but again, they are small, and I have to look for them....they do not jump out, even in direct comparison. Kudos to Dior, and glad I don't have to vintage hunt.

Great summary, I feel basically the same way about the old v. new. The newer stuff is definitely thicker in the woody/resinous base note department. When a perfumer friend was smelling the vintage stuff and we were discussing its status as a "vintage beast" she commented something along the lines of generally feeling the opposite way about Fahrenheit - that in many ways it is actually delicate and transparent. I've always thought of it as a "green" scent first and foremost so hearing that was particularly enlightening.

I do find the top notes in the 1989 bottle to be a little more bombastic in the gasoline-ish sense but they're fleeting and overall, not too far removed from the current stuff.

 

[LiveJazz]

Vent Vert and Vert by Clandestine Labs

Original version / Cellier:
Balanced, dry, bright green. It's pretty incredible to smell...galbanum and vegetal greens can be so domineering, and those notes are certainly the centerpiece here, but the composition feels light on its feet, and crisp. There is an element of white soapiness and clean woods/moss. Peppery bits, possibly an artifact of the galbanum in this dry context. Nothing seems out of place. This lacks the wet/sappy heavy effect and vegetal types of scents often have. This is bright greens on a cool breeze. The effect feels plainspoken and simple: "I am a green, clean soapy scent and I am good." I had smelled an early version of Vent Vert once before, and I am now reminded again why this is such a reference point in the green genre.

Middle version - Calice Becker 1991
In comparison to the original, this feels weighted down and bloated with warmer notes and heavier florals that in my opinion serve mainly to district from the brisk greens that I assocociate with Vent Vert. It just doesn't seem to fit in with Vent Vert's raison d'etre. Ripe fruity notes and thick florals....both absent or nearly so in the original, are very present here. I'm not particularly good at picking up specific florals within a complex mixture, but I think I get a heavier ylang here, possibly a jammy rose. Anyway, the overall effect is like a weighted blanket laid over the delicacy of the original Vent Vert, and the bones of Vent Vert can't quite support the weight.

Later version, Nathalie Feisthauer, c. 2000
Fairly similar to the Becker version. Starts out grassier and sappier than the Becker, and less floral/fruity, but in the end a similar "weight". Into the heart, I think this feels a bit more woody-powdery, and aromatic. I swear I smell some lavender in here, more orris/iris than the prior two version, The base is given a bit more heft with a broader ambery-woody-vetiver accord. Fluffy laundry musks...I don't mind their presence here. This starts to feel almost barbershoppy at times. The Becker version was a big departure from the original that I felt was out of proportion and not quite complete. This goes even further afield, I think it's actually a better, more integrated scent as a result.


Vert by Clandestine Laboratories
First time trying anything from this house, and oh man is it a good one! The top makes my mouth water - fizzy green, strightly astringent and sour in a sort of mastic-y way, spicy (big fresh coriander + mixed dry Mediterranean herb garden effect at times). It's bright, but also seems very planted and full of heft...satisfying. As the opening fizz calms down, it becomes more of a fresh-spicy woody/earthy scent, with a definite urinous tone. I would guess vetiver/moss/patch/civet rumbling around. I don't get much in the way of flowers at any point. At certain points, this reminds me of Homme de Gres on steroids, and even more, Charenton Macerations Christopher Street, for the fizzy-spicy effect heading into a parallel earthy-animalic-woody zone. In Vert, those characteristics from top bottom are cranked up to 11, but it remains in balance.

So, does it resemble Vent Vert? Nah, not to me. This reads as a definitively modern composition, using vintage green chypre references mainly as spiritual guide, not in a literal way.

 

[CookBot]

Diorella!

Vintage EDT:

Vintage Parfum:

Modern EDT:

Does anyone care to venture a guess at the relative years that these versions were in existence?

I have the dregs of a bottle I've been thinking of as "modern", exact birthdate unknown but I thought it was around 2000-05, but it doesn't smell anything like LJ's description. It's got oodles of the rotting melons and wet flowers that he finds absent in this iteration. The bottle is in the modern shape but with a paper label rather than the imprinted text.

 

[CookBot]

Later version, Nathalie Feisthauer, c. 2000

Man, you were far kinder to this sample than I expected you to be. I find it so caustic that it's almost repulsive. I spilled a bunch on my hands while decanting it and it made me almost nauseated, and is nearly impossible to scrub off. And I'm not at all averse to modern greens -- in fact, that Clandestine Lab Vert that you examined sounds gooood.

It's a pity I find the modern VV so vile, because the bottle is great. I'm a sucker for a thick, cubic inkwell bottle.

 

[grayspoole]

Does anyone care to venture a guess at the relative years that these versions were in existence?

I have the dregs of a bottle I've been thinking of as "modern", exact birthdate unknown but I thought it was around 2000-05, but it doesn't smell anything like LJ's description. It's got oodles of the rotting melons and wet flowers that he finds absent in this iteration. The bottle is in the modern shape but with a paper label rather than the imprinted text.

Does this look like the bottle you have?



If so, I would say this is from 1998-2004, or thereabouts. So your thought of 2000-05 is accurate.

Perhaps the “modern EDT” in the Pass is the Les Creations version from 2009, which was a definite reformulation. On Fragrantica, this Diorella is said to have “accentuated luminous lemon from Sicily,” “sweet and floral honeysuckle in a heart, and vetiver in a base.”

That bottle looks like this:

 

[Varanis Ridari]

Just read up on the thread. No thoughts, head empty.

(yet)

 

[LiveJazz]

No thoughts, head empty.

That sounds so pleasant.

Man, you were far kinder to this sample than I expected you to be. I find it so caustic that it's almost repulsive. I spilled a bunch on my hands while decanting it and it made me almost nauseated, and is nearly impossible to scrub off. And I'm not at all averse to modern greens -- in fact, that Clandestine Lab Vert that you examined sounds gooood.

It's a pity I find the modern VV so vile, because the bottle is great. I'm a sucker for a thick, cubic inkwell bottle.

View attachment 326633

I was a little surprised, too. I got some strange vibes from this stuff when I got (I think) a little on my fingers when I first received it, but actually sniffing it critically wasn't so bad. Maybe smelling from a small and very concentrated spot (i.e. from spillage) just isn't the way to go with this one.

Overall I suppose I'm neutral on the two later Vent Verts...they were not great, not terrible, just interersting in comparison to the original, which is the one I'd choose by a country mile. It was the lightest, greenest, driest and easily the most wearable.

The CL Vert really was outstanding as a modern green...thinking you'll like it.

 

[LiveJazz]

Does anyone care to venture a guess at the relative years that these versions were in existence?

I have the dregs of a bottle I've been thinking of as "modern", exact birthdate unknown but I thought it was around 2000-05, but it doesn't smell anything like LJ's description. It's got oodles of the rotting melons and wet flowers that he finds absent in this iteration. The bottle is in the modern shape but with a paper label rather than the imprinted text.

Here is another where I probably ought to smell the modern version again in isolation. The rotting melons and flowers might very well still be there, and smelling against the vintages made them seem absent only in comparison.

 

[CookBot]

Does this look like the bottle you have?

If so, I would say this is from 1998-2004, or thereabouts. So your thought of 2000-05 is accurate.

Yep, that's exactly the one I have. I guess it wasn't as modern as I thought. Sounds like it was the last one before it got really gutted with the "Les Creations" version. “Sweet and floral honeysuckle in a heart, and vetiver in a base” is not what I want to see in my Diorella.

 

[CookBot]

Here is another where I probably ought to smell the modern version again in isolation. The rotting melons and flowers might very well still be there, and smelling against the vintages made them seem absent only in comparison.

Do you suppose an argument could be made for vertical testing in any particular order, according to age?

it seems like the natural inclination would be to start with the oldest and move forward, but might it be better to start with the newest example, so that you're smelling sequentially as qualities are added to a scent rather than what's been taken away?

 

[LiveJazz]

Do you suppose an argument could be made for vertical testing in any particular order, according to age?

it seems like the natural inclination would be to start with the oldest and move forward, but might it be better to start with the newest example, so that you're smelling sequentially as qualities are added to a scent rather than what's been taken away?

Hmm, good question. I like to see the chronological evolution, but can see the argument for flipping it. Plus, in many cases you’re saving the best for last, which is nice.

 

[LiveJazz]

Alright, last couple of scents!

Messe de Minuit
We only have one version of this one, the vintage/original EDC. I'm curious to know the consesus on how/if this one has changed since this version, because I have to say, it's a wonderful incense.

Despite being well known and respected around here, I'd never gotten around to smelling MdM until now. The opening is characterized by an uncommon level of softness and smoothness, and a cool dry/chalky type of texture. I love that effect, and of the listed notes, I'm not sure which would be responsible for that texture. If I were sniffing this blind, I'd probably guess something like a dry iris and frankincense + benzoin type of thing, but the listed opening is more citrus spice, so who knows. Either way, the overall effect is definitively "stony cool incense", and yes, I agree with the various reviews equating this with empty cold churches and such. It's an evocative and beautiful incense, and it wears surprisingly easily due to its dryness and softness. The texture is the most impressive thing about it...simultaneously velvety and plush, but also stony and austere. Love it, fantastic incense.

Add an addendum on Salvador Dali Pour Homme:
It sounded like we were generally open to including, so I'll jot down a new notes here. For my overall impression, here is my Directory review, which is still the best I can do on this one, descriptively:

Salvador Dali Pour Homme opens with a sharp, herbal, astringent, rubbery gunshot that opens up to reveal a whiff of something just starting to ferment. Whether we're about to get a nice batch of kim-chi or a rotten jar of funky sewage, we don't yet know. Oddly addictive for the same reasons we stop and stare at a burning car on the side of the road.

The scent very slowly softens to reveal notes that are a little more approachable. A touch of sweetness from (I assume) the jasmine in the heart shows itself, and a surprisingly soft burnt leathery fougere accord comes to dominate the lower heart and base.

The questionable fermentation process has resolved itself, and luckily, we ended up with something savory, and not rotten.

To compare Salvador Dali's genius base with the profiles of a few other scents you might be familiar with: think of Azzaro Pour Homme's classic anisic fougere base combined with Yatagan's bone dry, savory musk and leather foundation. Add good dose of funky earthy patchouli. Toss that on a smoldering charcoal fire and singe lightly.

This is definitely one that lives up to its challenging, dark, weird reputation. But it's captivating and beautiful in its own way.

In terms of comparison against other leathery-fougeres in the pass, I find it considerably smokier and as noted above, more "savory" and richer overall than Or Black, and less green. I see the architectural similarities (as a leathery fougere at most basic level), but as I said earlier, Salvador Dali really has its own personality and is genuinely unlike anything else I've smelled. It's also one of those scents that seems to present different facets with each wear. I'm curious to see if others find it as fascinating, odd, and hard to define as I do.

Samples will depart for the House of the Dragon, I mean @Varanis Ridari 's place, this afternoon.