Sauvage. Loved by the people. Hated by the snobs.

[Redfish365]

Snobs are, indeed, people, but they are not "the people" --which is the OP's point.

(Sorry for butting in, I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi.)

So you're suggesting that all snobs are people but not all people are snobs...nor do snobs comprise "the people?"
I would submit that there really are two groups - the enlightened (or "snobs" in your parlance) and the rabble... otherwise known as "the people." My $0.02...😁

 

[Salumbre]

So you're suggesting that all snobs are people but not all people are snobs...nor do snobs comprise "the people?"
I would submit that there really are two groups - the enlightened (or "snobs" in your parlance) and the rabble... otherwise known as "the people." My $0.02...😁

I'm not "suggesting" anything; I'm just reading what the OP wrote.

I would suggest you take it up with the OP. I'm one of the rabble, anyway. (Well, I don't LOOOOOVE Sauvage, but I like it well enough.)

 

[Deleted member 26234406]

Let me quote part of an excellent analysis from a German site, that to me nails the problem with Sauvage:

"So with "Sauvage" we have a fragrance that was developed strictly according to market analyses: from two of the most successful men's fragrances, with which care was taken to ensure that the age structure of the wearers was not too similar. In addition, luring in potential first-time users who have never used perfume before. This aims to maximize popularity. That doesn't have to be bad. But here popularity turns into arbitrariness. I'll go further: when we smell Sauvage, the question arises: what is a perfume? Is any blend of fragrant materials a perfume? No, it is not. A fragrance mixture becomes a perfume through the creative will of a perfumer. But for this there is no place in “Sauvage”. Nothing new in terms of design emerges from the juxtaposition of fragments of other fragrances, which may be in line with the market and in any case derived from market needs analyses. No collage, it remains a pile of fragments. A scent, but not a perfume."

I'm not "suggesting" anything; I'm just reading what the OP wrote.

I would suggest you take it up with the OP. I'm one of the rabble, anyway. (Well, I don't LOOOOOVE Sauvage, but I like it well enough.)

I'd rather be part of the rabble than the self-described "enlightened" any day HAHAHAHA

 

[Salumbre]

I'd rather be part of the rabble than the self-described "enlightened" any day HAHAHAHA

Seconded. Who cares?

 

[the_good_life]

There's a crucial difference between snobs and knowledgeable folks, which tends to be underplayed in strongly anti-intellectual cultures. Immunologists e.g. are not vaccine snobs. Art historians are not "Picasso snobs."
People who have spent time and money making themselves acquainted with the complex world of perfumes may not be trained perfumers, but they have informed opinions that are closer approximations to reality than those of casual perfume consumers, subjective preferences notwithstanding. Experts can have legitimate differences of opinion, but that's not the same as the difference between an informed and an uninformed opinion. Anybody is free to like or dislike Sauvage, but there's a strong case for it not being a well designed perfume.

 

[Deleted member 26234406]

There's a crucial difference between snobs and knowledgeable folks, which tends to be underplayed in strongly anti-intellectual cultures. Immunologists e.g. are not vaccine snobs. Art historians are not "Picasso snobs."
People who have spent time and money making themselves acquainted with the complex world of perfumes may not be trained perfumers, but they have informed opinions that are closer approximations to reality than those of casual perfume consumers, subjective preferences notwithstanding. Experts can have legitimate differences of opinion, but that's not the same as the difference between an informed and an uninformed opinion. Anybody is free to like or dislike Sauvage, but there's a strong case for it not being a well designed perfume.

I am pro-intellectual / expertise in every way. I have just never seen a persuasive argument, by an expert or otherwise, that Sauvage is not a well-constructed or designed perfume.

 

[RPLens]

Guys, it's just an overperforming shower gel.

 

[I’ma-Fraggot]

I’m a total Fragrance snob and I love the EDP and the Elixir and plan on getting the parfum sooo… yeah I just think haters gonna hate

 

[SmellSharpe]

I like the EDT and finally bought a bottle of Elixir. Both are excellent IMO.

I have over 100 fragrances and neither Sauvage are in my top 5, but Sauvage is the best selling fragrance in the world for a reason.

 

[imm0rtelle]

I'm always fascinated by the fragrances that penetrate the zeitgeist:

• Aventus
• Sauvage
• Baccarat Rouge 540
• Santal 33

I'm not a big fan of a lot of them, and out of the list I only find Sauvage enjoyable. I wonder what they have in common that allows them to be best sellers in the first place.

 

[imm0rtelle]

I'm definitely wearing Dior Sauvage to celebrate today. June 1, 2022 is Sauvage day for me.

 

[Varanis Ridari]

Francois Demachy probably had a lot of fun overdosing the base materials like Mandark from Dexter's Laboratory.

"MWA HA HA... HA... HA HA... HA HA... DEEDEE SHALL BE MINE"

*Pours in more ambroxan and norlimbanol*

 

[Salumbre]

I'm always fascinated by the fragrances that penetrate the zeitgeist:

• Aventus
• Sauvage
• Baccarat Rouge 540
• Santal 33

I'm not a big fan of a lot of them, and out of the list I only find Sauvage enjoyable. I wonder what they have in common that allows them to be best sellers in the first place.

That's a whole other conversation, and one that deserves a thread of its own. Why don't you start it?

 

[slpfrsly]

I'd rather be part of the rabble than the self-described "enlightened" any day HAHAHAHA

 

[the_good_life]

I am pro-intellectual / expertise in every way. I have just never seen a persuasive argument, by an expert or otherwise, that Sauvage is not a well-constructed or designed perfume.

The quote I gave above, which is from a long analysis. Sauvage is a well designed functional scent, but I'm with those who say it's not a perfume

I am pro-intellectual / expertise in every way. I have just never seen a persuasive argument, by an expert or otherwise, that Sauvage is not a well-constructed or designed perfume.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. To me it passes as a perfume-simulacrum, a P.T. Barnum scent, an algorithm-generated readymade, spray-on showergel and many things, but, for the reasons quoted above, not perfume.

I had the following thoughts on it way back when:
"Something went unnoticed upon the release of Dior Sauvage in 2015. It marked and absolute end point of creative perfumery, a singularity of algorithm-driven commodification free from human interference, from culture, thus. It transcends aesthetic judgment, because that is not its domain. It smells, but it is not perfume. It is the signature scent of the self-disciplining neoliberal worker-drone, the expunging of smell by smell as described by Adorno and Horkheimer in the Dialectics of the Enlightenment."

Which refers to these passage from DotE:

"But anything natural which has not been absorbed into utility by passing through the cleansing channels of conceptual order-the screech of stylus on slate which sets the teeth on edge, the haut-goût which brings to mind filth and corruption, the sweat which appears on the brow of the diligent - whatever is not quite assimilated, or infringes the commands in which the progress of centuries has been sedimented, is felt as intrusive and arouses a compulsive aversion."
[...]
"That is why smell, as both the perception and the perceived - which are one in the act of olfaction - is more expressive than other senses. When we see we remain who we are, when we smell we are absorbed entirely. In civilization, therefore, smell is regarded as a disgrace, a sign of the lower social orders, lesser races, and baser animals. The civilized person is allowed to give way to such desires only if the prohibition is suspended by rationalization in the service of practical purposes, real or apparent. One is allowed to indulge the outlawed drive if acting with the unquestionable aim of expunging it."

Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, "Elements of Anti-Semitism," Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments (first published 1949)

Which, whether you like Sauvage or not, is hopefully some nice food for thought.

 

[slpfrsly]

There's a crucial difference between snobs and knowledgeable folks, which tends to be underplayed in strongly anti-intellectual cultures. Immunologists e.g. are not vaccine snobs. Art historians are not "Picasso snobs."
People who have spent time and money making themselves acquainted with the complex world of perfumes may not be trained perfumers, but they have informed opinions that are closer approximations to reality than those of casual perfume consumers, subjective preferences notwithstanding. Experts can have legitimate differences of opinion, but that's not the same as the difference between an informed and an uninformed opinion. Anybody is free to like or dislike Sauvage, but there's a strong case for it not being a well designed perfume.

Is a snob lacking in knowledge or credentials? That seems like a false distinction between snob and non-snob. Snobbery isn't ignorance or a lack of achievement - quite the opposite. It's an egotistical response to gaining some level of social or economic success and applying a pseudo-moral evaluation to the resulting social or economic hierarchy.

Art historians are perfectly capable of being Picasso snobs. In fact, it's very easy to make a case for some art historians being Picasso snobs in elevating his work over, say, neo-classical art, due primarily or solely to the hegemonic ideological beliefs of the day. As the snob is merely arbitrary (or contrary) in his judgement for the sake of distinction from the lower orders, he's easily persuaded to champion the non-egalitarian exclusivity of someone like Picasso. The snob's evaluation is downstream of the exclusivity, rather than any intellectual understanding of concept or form; their analysis is corrupted by sneering and a veneration of exclusivity relative to the tastes of both previous elites and the current masses. Indeed, modern art is often lampooned (and its defenders and patrons likewise mocked) due to the rampant snobbery within it. It isn't merely ignorance of the concepts or aims behind modern art that motivates this mockery. The lampooning is common because it's not hard to see the snobbery and pseudo-elitism at play; modern art, in its subversion of prior form and meaning, appeals to some people not because of the work itself but on the basis of an exclusivity and distinction from the rest of society that is otherwise not permitted or impossible to gain in other areas of life. In other words, someone who wants to be seen as superior to others will cynically respond positively to Picasso where most people will reject it; the conceit is that the person who responds positively is more informed (and in many cases, eventually, this is likely to become true) than those who respond negatively to Picasso compared to, say, Botticelli but this is not the full story. The implication is one of knowledge v ignorance, as if any rejection of Picasso is unthinking and uninformed. It is not necessarily more information and understanding that makes the art historian revere Picasso, but an initial desire for distinction from the masses and a pseudo-elitism that preceded knowledge and understanding. At least in part, there is a social and hierarchical decision being made by the art historian to become an art historian and all the rest of it. If that art historian is incompetent or dishonest about their criticism or research, then snobbery (justified post hoc on the basis that they know more than those who mock them and/or Picasso) is practically a guarantee.

Time and money spent by an individual on a topic aren't de facto measurements of competence or understanding. The best example of this in perfume is the way newcomers will often change their value system - what aromas they like, how much money they are willing to spend on perfume - based on an increase in time, knowledge, and money spent on acquiring bottles of perfume and reading/posting in the 'fragcomm'. The mistake is to think that the additional information gained through exposure to the online 'fragcomm' is only beneficial and only heightening one's understanding and appreciation of perfume. But it isn't, it can also be distracting, misleading, confusing. More specifically, the exposure to a social sphere - a virtual one, but still social nevertheless - greatly increases the likelihood of snobbery on the basis that some people are inclined to think/act with regard to the social group rather than more individually. Add these two things together - a new perception of perfume as something with a specific social and hierharchical value, and putting a newfound importance on what other people say about fragrance - and you get someone who will forsake their own sensory perception and defer to supposedly 'better' and more informed (more knowledgeable) noses as they begin the hallowed "fragrance journey". This is never more obvious than with 'challenging' fragrances; it takes time and money to 'learn' the notion that a faecal oud is 'better' (because it is 'challenging') than a much more simple, cleaner, more pleasant aroma of, say, an eau de cologne. Various ideas of superiority are attached to this - that 'challenging' is better than 'simple', and so on - and it's not hard to see that as snobbery i.e. a delusional denial of instinct and inherent sensory perception as an inferior form of judgement to a deferral to social consensus and linguistic/rhetorical arguments. Another great example would be higher education, where students often graduate less able to think coherently, become less honest, and are sometimes less intelligent than when they entered - though they are more informed on specific topics, they are now unable to accept patently simple facts having been assessed on how to meet a criteria that rewards those who unthink and follow the existing formula. The recalibration of higher education as an applied finishing school for both professional progression and the priesthood of the hegemonic secular ideology obscures the fact that this wasn't always the function of scholarship and research, and no amount of time and money spent gaining credientals or expertise in certain departments will make the unthinking pseudo-reality that is taught within them any less untrue. All sorts of ideas - like Dunning Kruger, or the Imposer Syndrome - are used to muddy the fact that time, money, and effort can be detrimental to understanding and competence, irrespective of how hegemonic the information or institutional the manner of distribution of that information might be. If nothing else, the last few years seems to have reinforced (to some) or exposed (to others) that bureaucratic expertise is not what they believed it to be, and expertise itself has been corrupted by credentialism, ideological subversion, and an adherence to incentives over truth.

This is why I don't understand the way you frame the dichotomy. Snobbery is far more likely to be a result of some knowledge than no knowledge at all; the snob mocks intellectualism in his dishonesty, but he knows enough information and has some social or professional accomplishment in order to sneer as the contrarian he is.

 

[Nasenmann]

When Sauvage EdT released I said something along the lines of "maybe nothing groundbreaking or special at all for any fraghead who already eplored the 80es/90ies/00s mainstream fragrances but likable and a style I would prefer to become fashionable again with the younger men over the long-running push towards more and more unisex stuff.". I even got myself a bottle at some point but hardly ever wore it, due to it becoming so omni-present and also a due to having much better alternatives in my collection.

However, currently I find myself enjoying it's Elixir-flanker quite a bit and wear that one regularly to work. Very easy to overspray and really bad on clothes (since the remains of the massive amber-woody base, even after washing, smell ugly without the other notes on top). Used sparingly on skin, it's quite likeable and certainly better then the EdT.

 

[Deleted member 26234406]

The quote I gave above, which is from a long analysis. Sauvage is a well designed functional scent, but I'm with those who say it's not a perfume


We'll have to agree to disagree on that. To me it passes as a perfume-simulacrum, a P.T. Barnum scent, an algorithm-generated readymade, spray-on showergel and many things, but, for the reasons quoted above, not perfume.

I had the following thoughts on it way back when:
"Something went unnoticed upon the release of Dior Sauvage in 2015. It marked and absolute end point of creative perfumery, a singularity of algorithm-driven commodification free from human interference, from culture, thus. It transcends aesthetic judgment, because that is not its domain. It smells, but it is not perfume. It is the signature scent of the self-disciplining neoliberal worker-drone, the expunging of smell by smell as described by Adorno and Horkheimer in the Dialectics of the Enlightenment."

Which refers to these passage from DotE:

"But anything natural which has not been absorbed into utility by passing through the cleansing channels of conceptual order-the screech of stylus on slate which sets the teeth on edge, the haut-goût which brings to mind filth and corruption, the sweat which appears on the brow of the diligent - whatever is not quite assimilated, or infringes the commands in which the progress of centuries has been sedimented, is felt as intrusive and arouses a compulsive aversion."
[...]
"That is why smell, as both the perception and the perceived - which are one in the act of olfaction - is more expressive than other senses. When we see we remain who we are, when we smell we are absorbed entirely. In civilization, therefore, smell is regarded as a disgrace, a sign of the lower social orders, lesser races, and baser animals. The civilized person is allowed to give way to such desires only if the prohibition is suspended by rationalization in the service of practical purposes, real or apparent. One is allowed to indulge the outlawed drive if acting with the unquestionable aim of expunging it."

Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, "Elements of Anti-Semitism," Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments (first published 1949)

Which, whether you like Sauvage or not, is hopefully some nice food for thought.

You had me rolling at neo-liberal worker drone. Bravo.

 

[Salumbre]

This is an interesting discussion, and one I have been following without having any real stakes on it. Personally, after some misgivings, I have come to like my bottle of Sauvage well enough, though I probably won't replace it when it's empty.

I even agree with those who argue that Sauvage it is not particularly well formulated or blended. Even to my decidedly not expert nose, it smell kind of disconnected, a bunch of notes floating around and fighting for attention.

But there is an argument made here that does not make sense to me: that Sauvage is "not a perfume."

(I do get the shower gel comparison, though there is a shower gel or two I would love to see made into an edt --Baylis & Harding's Oud, Cedar and Amber, for example.)

But the "not a perfume" argument simply does not hold water, IMHO. Our idea of perfume nowadays would not have been recognized as such barely 50 years ago. People at that time would have said the exact same thing of, say, Terre d'Hermes --or, to stay within the House of Dior, Fahrenheit. "A perfume that smells like gasoline? THE HORROR!"

 

[the_good_life]

Snobbery is far more likely to be a result of some knowledge than no knowledge at all;

That's where we disagree. In a social democracy such as the US there's such a powerful tradition of "snobbery from below" that expertise or the pursuit of wisdom can be held against you. Cf. Bill Hicks' "We got ourselves a reader"

So as not do derail the thread I'll just say that the term snobbery to me entails a moral judgment (it's an inappropriate and nonreflexive assumption of superiority) and I would thus categorically distinguish it from Bourdieuean "distinction" (knowledge as cultural / social capital) which covers many of your points, as well as from expertise (an empirically measurable superiority in competence in a circumscribed field of knowledge).

 

[lair77]

I doubt it's a snob factor for me because there are many mass-market best-selling designer fragrances that I love. I like cheaper fragrances and a few celebrity fragrances too; I don't discriminate.

I just find Sauvage to be nauseating and offputting on a visceral level.

 

[Poboijosh]

Oh how I loathe Sauvage! The reason being is that it is an incredibly, ‘INCREDIBLY’ strong perfume that I’m guessing the wearer becomes nose blind to it instantly, because every time I smell it, which I hate, the dude wearing it smells like he just doused himself very generously. I’m talking about waaay over applied. Easily room filling sillage. What an offensive perfume that personally makes me really queasy. I just think Sauvage is garbage.

 

[Poboijosh]

Also to add. I never could understand the marketing ploy behind Sauvage, as in why Dior chose Depp for the face? Here’s a man that is well known in Hollywood circles for refusing to bathe for weeks on end, sometimes even for months on end let alone even brush his teeth for months on end… disgusting. Look it up, it’s true. I couldn’t imagine being more repulsed by experiencing Sauvage on a human that doesn’t bathe, ever.

 

[Rodolfo]

Also to add. I never could understand the marketing ploy behind Sauvage, as in why Dior chose Depp for the face? Here’s a man that is well known in Hollywood circles for refusing to bathe for weeks on end, sometimes even for months on end let alone even brush his teeth for months on end… disgusting. Look it up, it’s true. I couldn’t imagine being more repulsed by experiencing Sauvage on a human that doesn’t bathe, ever.

I think that is a rather gross comment. But hey, it's just my opinion. I guess the people at Dior would think of Depp in other terms, leaving aside his alleged lack of hygiene, to choose him as the face of Sauvage. And time has proved them right.
On the other hand, everyone knows that only truths are discussed in Hollywood circles.

 

[Deleted member 26234406]

I think that is a rather gross comment. But hey, it's just my opinion. I guess the people at Dior would think of Depp in other terms, leaving aside his alleged lack of hygiene, to choose him as the face of Sauvage. And time has proved them right.
On the other hand, everyone knows that only truths are discussed in Hollywood circles.

Is there anywhere on this planet that I can go and not read about Johnny Deep and Amber Heard?

 

[Rodolfo]

Is there anywhere on this planet that I can go and not read about Johnny Deep and Amber Heard?

What is this question, a kind of riddle? You can go anywhere on the planet and not read about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard if you don't want to. You just have to not do it.
On the other hand, retrospectively and regardless of whether he showers once a month or his breath smells like an ashtray, I observe in Mr. Depp's public figure, age, image and career more positive and remarkable aspects to easily understand why Dior chose him in 2015 to be the face of Sauvage. And who knows, maybe the people at Dior were aware of the aforementioned "hygiene issues" and that's why they called their fragrance "sauvage".

 

[the_good_life]

Here’s a man that is well known in Hollywood circles for refusing to bathe for weeks on end, sometimes even for months on end let alone even brush his teeth for months on end… disgusting.

He was probably just method acting his way into the Jack Sparrow character, but in any event that would make spray-on shower gel quite a handy item 😉. I think of "Sauvage" as referring to what Demachy has done to Dior heritage.

 

[imm0rtelle]

Is there anywhere on this planet that I can go and not read about Johnny Deep and Amber Heard?

Ironic since you're the only one who has brought up Amber Heard in this thread.

 

[Salumbre]

Also to add. I never could understand the marketing ploy behind Sauvage, as in why Dior chose Depp for the face? Here’s a man that is well known in Hollywood circles for refusing to bathe for weeks on end, sometimes even for months on end let alone even brush his teeth for months on end… disgusting. Look it up, it’s true. I couldn’t imagine being more repulsed by experiencing Sauvage on a human that doesn’t bathe, ever.

The whole industry of French perfume was born to cover up the BO of courtiers who didn't bathe and barely wiped. Just saying.

 

[lair77]

I hate Sauvage, but you'd be hard-pressed to call me a snob.

I enjoy a lot of the mainstream fragrances. I love Acqua di Gio, 1 Million, Spicebomb, the Chanels, etc. And even the mainstream scents that I don't care for, I at least think they're average or decent. I rarely actively hate a fragrance.

But Sauvage is the only fragrance of the past several years that I just straight up hate.

 

[Poboijosh]

The whole industry of French perfume was born to cover up the BO of courtiers who didn't bathe and barely wiped. Just saying.

That was then. This is 2022 haha!

 

[Varanis Ridari]

I just realized Mikeaveli2682 is now a "deleted account". That's unfortunate. He was a fun contributor here.

Anyways, Sauvage is perfect "perfume for other people", which is mostly antithetical to why hobbyists wear fragrance; and that fact alone may be crucial to why most of the discourse here leads to consensus of it being bad, while on the bigger more well-trafficked Fragrantica, all the bros sing its praises as optimized smelly sauce.

Really shows you where the community at large is headed huh? We're all worried about perfume as art being dead, but from where I'm sitting, it looks more like interest in perfume as art is what's truly dying. They're just giving the majority of "us" what we want, and that's Sauvage. *shrug*

 

[Poboijosh]

I just realized Mikeaveli2682 is now a "deleted account". That's unfortunate. He was a fun contributor here.

Anyways, Sauvage is perfect "perfume for other people", which is mostly antithetical to why hobbyists wear fragrance; and that fact alone may be crucial to why most of the discourse here leads to consensus of it being bad, while on the bigger more well-trafficked Fragrantica, all the bros sing its praises as optimized smelly sauce.

Really shows you where the community at large is headed huh? We're all worried about perfume as art being dead, but from where I'm sitting, it looks more like interest in perfume as art is what's truly dying. They're just giving the majority of "us" what we want, and that's Sauvage. *shrug*

Hi Varanis,

Actually, most everything is praised over at Fakegrantica. The website used to be credible, now it just makes for pretty colors to look at. God forbid you post anything even remotely leaning towards the negative. Those balloons are popped instantly. This is why Sauvage’s page over there appears to be all rainbows and unicorns, and pretty much every other page. They took a path of ‘We want everything to be squeaky clean and super friendly happy, all the time!’. You can’t say anything negative about a perfume. Oop, and do not say old lady! Ever!! Instant ban. But yes, the art of enjoying the art of perfume is falling by the way side. Enter, Sauvage.

This is why I love Basenotes. Freedom of speech. Uncensored within reason. I can leave a scathing review here about how much I dislike Sauvage and it’s here to stay. Rather than being down voted by some snowflake who feels hurt. I mean c’mon!

 

[Varanis Ridari]

Hi Varanis,

Actually, most everything is praised over at Fakegrantica. The website used to be credible, now it just makes for pretty colors to look at. God forbid you post anything even remotely leaning towards the negative. Those balloons are popped instantly. This is why Sauvage’s page over there appears to be all rainbows and unicorns, and pretty much every other page. They took a path of ‘We want everything to be squeaky clean and super friendly happy, all the time!’. You can’t say anything negative about a perfume. Oop, and do not say old lady! Ever!! Instant ban.

This is why I love Basenotes. Freedom of speech. Uncensored within reason. I can leave a scathing review here about how much I dislike Sauvage and it’s here to stay. Rather than being down voted by some snowflake who feels hurt. I mean c’mon!

I won't derail the thread by going into detail on that, but I feel you 100%.

As for Sauvage, I'll enjoy it more when every other guy on the street isn't wearing it, just like it took 20 years for me to come around to Curve and Acqua di Giò lol

 

[Salumbre]

The whole industry of French perfume was born to cover up the BO of courtiers who didn't bathe and barely wiped. Just saying.

That was then. This is 2022 haha!

All I'm saying is, there's precedent...

 

[lair77]

I truly wish that I found Sauvage to be a good-but-overhyped fragrance. But it literally triggers my gag reflexes. And I smell this on people in public almost every day. And to make matters worse, the projection on it is easily 100+ feet so it's unavoidable.

 

[lair77]

Can Dior reformulate this fragrance already so it doesn't project as much.

 

[Pippin06]

Can Dior reformulate this fragrance already so it doesn't project as much.

There is always the other Sauvage--with eau in front of it, and edt behind it.

 

[ultravisitor]

Can Dior reformulate this fragrance already so it doesn't project as much.

I mean, you could always just go for half a spray behind your head.

But if you're wanting Dior to reformulate it so that you don't have to smell it so much on others, it won't matter. Needy, insecure fragbros desperate for compliments will spray it 15 or so times--and that'll just be their first application of the day.

 

[lair77]

It's not me. It theses damn chuckleheads that put on 10 sprays and then go into public settings where it's not feasible to keep a 200 foot distance from them.

I probably think those people are just anosmic to it - rather than from any wrong intent. But It's not even the strength that bothers me but the range. A fragrance that's strong up to 10 feet away is fine. But if a fragrance can project 200 feet away, it's hard to avoid.