Vintage Chanel Perfumes & Colognes Discussion Thread

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
Since there's a Vintage Dior thread I figure there should be a thread on Chanel fragrances both perfumes and colognes overall.

As for perfumes, so far I'm only well knowledge in No 19, I still have a fair amount of learning to do with some of the other offerings like No 5, No 22, Cristalle, as well as vintage formulations Bois des Iles, Cuir de Russie, and Gardenia.

One Chanel that I really want to smell is No 46.

As for colognes I hope to try some earlier iterations of Pour Monsieur.
 

Varanis Ridari

The Scented Devil
Basenotes Plus
Oct 17, 2012
This I know: No. 22 is often called a softer less-aldehyde edit of No. 5. I personally like Cristalle as a "cold and icy" early take on the now-ubiquitous fruity floral genre (it also has a chypre base which helps me like it).

Never gotten my hands on samples of Gardenia and No. 46. You're on your own there.
 

saminlondon

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
This I know: No. 22 is often called a softer less-aldehyde edit of No. 5. I personally like Cristalle as a "cold and icy" early take on the now-ubiquitous fruity floral genre (it also has a chypre base which helps me like it).

Never gotten my hands on samples of Gardenia and No. 46. You're on your own there.

Interesting. I've never read that about No. 22. There's no particular link with No. 5, from what I can smell: just bright, sparkling aldehydes on a incense-y cushion. Vintage is lovely, as long as the aldehydes are holding up. Bois des Iles is much closer to No. 5, I think.

The vintage Gardenia is sometimes described as unisex, especially the extrait, but I'll need to dig out my sample to be sure.
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
Interesting. I've never read that about No. 22. There's no particular link with No. 5, from what I can smell: just bright, sparkling aldehydes on a incense-y cushion. Vintage is lovely, as long as the aldehydes are holding up. Bois des Iles is much closer to No. 5, I think.

The vintage Gardenia is sometimes described as unisex, especially the extrait, but I'll need to dig out my sample to be sure.

No 5 wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Prior to trying No 5, I had Guerlain Vega which I thought was quite similar. Both share similar notes and that being said helped me trained my nose on aldehydes. I consider No 5 a cousin to Vega. So far I've only tried the perfume concentration, a vintage formulation.

I will need investigate No 22 as I haven't worn this stuff yet.

I received an offer to purchase a vintage Gardenia bottle at a very cheap price, I believe it was around $20 as part of a package deal with a few other Chanel bottles that I was purchasing at the time.
 

grayspoole

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 4, 2014
Great idea for a thread, NCalFragranceReviewer. I am not as obsessed with Chanel vintages as I am with some other houses but there are significant exceptions. And I can always change my mind...

No.19
I wear vintage No. 19 EDT so much that I am on my third brushed silver atomizer, although I have not emptied any other full size bottle of vintage perfume. No. 19 has the perfect harmony of elements that could have been discordant but are not. In No.19, galbanum has lost its chalky aridity because it is paired with a silky and slightly warm iris--the best iris note I know. Dewy floral notes-rose, lily of the valley--are grounded by oak moss, vetiver, and a touch of IBQ leather. Wearing No. 19 makes me feel poised and balanced, calm and invigorated. I wear No. 19 in both the vintage EDT and vintage parfum. The parfum is luxurious, but I prefer the vintage EDT from the 1970’s or early 1980’s, which is golden in color and not green.

No.5
I purchased my first vintage No. 5 extrait almost casually. I really didn’t expect to like it. Instead, it was a revelation. Now I wear No. 5 in the vintage extrait, vintage EDT, and vintage EDC. Can't seem to stop buying it...

Here's an interesting comparison of vintage and new No. 5 written by the expert nose Octavian Coifan, from his now sadly defunct blog:

No5 extrait is the incontestable proof that despite all the money in the world for the most famous perfume, all the great care and attention paid to quality, past and present cannot live within the same bottle. "Yesterday smells different that today." I compared by contrast two Chanel No5 extraits, vintage and modern (fresh from the shelf)... Maybe the written formula is the same (Chanel insists that the extract is the same) but the smell is not and it’s not the effect of the time. If the shape (to quote Roudnitska) is the same, the details are not, nor the time evolution. Both fragrances start different, after an hour they go in the same direction for a long time and in the end again they take two roads.

The first major difference is the animalic note. No. 5 vintage is animalic as any old, pre 50’s perfume used to be, while modern is not. There is almost a leather note, cuir de russie effect inside, which is not present in the modern version. This cuir note can be an effect from the civet, musc tincture (+nitromusk) + styrax+ jasmin/orris/cassie, but its presence is unmistakable and create what was often said about No5 – the smell of a woman. This is not true for the modern No5 which is more “artificial” without the depth often found in old perfumes.

The second main difference is the ylang. The modern extrait has a beautiful and very strong ylang-ylang note that is not so pushed in the old.

The vanilla. In the old one the depth of vanilla and the burnt, liqueur like (almost animalic) note of the natural tincture is of a tremendous beauty and complexity. The modern seems to focus more on the coumarine, almondy note.

The sandalwood. While in vintage sandalwood note is soft and tender, milky and gentle, combined with the orris, in the modern I am disturbed by a synthetic note (like Bacdanol or Sandalore), often present in fragrances from the 80’s.

The orris. As I noticed last year and then in Rallet, the old Chanel has a distinct orris, powdery-buttery note that is not so obvious in the modern. You can smell the jasmine-orris effect while in the modern the ylang covers all that.

To conclude, the main differences are: animalic, ylang, vanilla, sandalwod, and orris. The modern seems a polished version and … modernized but the differences are obvious by contrast (otherwise it can be called the same perfume minus the animalic note). The drydown of vintage No. 5 has an unmistakable beauty, soft, powdery, human that stays days on the blotter. Why even the No5 extract smells different is not an easy subject. I love both of them but still, I prefer the vintage No5. It has more life and history in it.
 

grayspoole

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 4, 2014
Interesting. I've never read that about No. 22. There's no particular link with No. 5, from what I can smell: just bright, sparkling aldehydes on a incense-y cushion. Vintage is lovely, as long as the aldehydes are holding up. Bois des Iles is much closer to No. 5, I think.

Saminlondon has captured my impressions of No.22 here as "bright sparkling aldehydes on an incense-y cushion." I don't think No. 22 resembles No. 5, but YMMV depending on the versions being compared. No. 22's incense is dry (not creamy) sandalwood, a little smoky, and very beautiful, a little bit like the incense in vintage My Sin, and there is an delicious overlay of white floral notes. I used up a decant of No.22 EDT from the 1990's, I believe, which could probably be called vintage. Note to self: get more vintage No.22.
 

cacio

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Nov 5, 2010
I think the coiffan citation makes good points about no 5. the first hit was nitromusks already several years ago. Then sandalwood became scarce. And more recently, restrictions on jasmine, and with it went some of the civet.
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
Great idea for a thread, NCalFragranceReviewer. I am not as obsessed with Chanel vintages as I am with some other houses but there are significant exceptions. And I can always change my mind...

No.19
I wear vintage No. 19 EDT so much that I am on my third brushed silver atomizer, although I have not emptied any other full size bottle of vintage perfume. No. 19 has the perfect harmony of elements that could have been discordant but are not. In No.19, galbanum has lost its chalky aridity because it is paired with a silky and slightly warm iris--the best iris note I know. Dewy floral notes-rose, lily of the valley--are grounded by oak moss, vetiver, and a touch of IBQ leather. Wearing No. 19 makes me feel poised and balanced, calm and invigorated. I wear No. 19 in both the vintage EDT and vintage parfum. The parfum is luxurious, but I prefer the vintage EDT from the 1970’s or early 1980’s, which is golden in color and not green.

No.5
I purchased my first vintage No. 5 extrait almost casually. I really didn’t expect to like it. Instead, it was a revelation. Now I wear No. 5 in the vintage extrait, vintage EDT, and vintage EDC. Can't seem to stop buying it...

Here's an interesting comparison of vintage and new No. 5 written by the expert nose Octavian Coifan, from his now sadly defunct blog:

No5 extrait is the incontestable proof that despite all the money in the world for the most famous perfume, all the great care and attention paid to quality, past and present cannot live within the same bottle. "Yesterday smells different that today." I compared by contrast two Chanel No5 extraits, vintage and modern (fresh from the shelf)... Maybe the written formula is the same (Chanel insists that the extract is the same) but the smell is not and it’s not the effect of the time. If the shape (to quote Roudnitska) is the same, the details are not, nor the time evolution. Both fragrances start different, after an hour they go in the same direction for a long time and in the end again they take two roads.

The first major difference is the animalic note. No. 5 vintage is animalic as any old, pre 50’s perfume used to be, while modern is not. There is almost a leather note, cuir de russie effect inside, which is not present in the modern version. This cuir note can be an effect from the civet, musc tincture (+nitromusk) + styrax+ jasmin/orris/cassie, but its presence is unmistakable and create what was often said about No5 – the smell of a woman. This is not true for the modern No5 which is more “artificial” without the depth often found in old perfumes.

The second main difference is the ylang. The modern extrait has a beautiful and very strong ylang-ylang note that is not so pushed in the old.

The vanilla. In the old one the depth of vanilla and the burnt, liqueur like (almost animalic) note of the natural tincture is of a tremendous beauty and complexity. The modern seems to focus more on the coumarine, almondy note.

The sandalwood. While in vintage sandalwood note is soft and tender, milky and gentle, combined with the orris, in the modern I am disturbed by a synthetic note (like Bacdanol or Sandalore), often present in fragrances from the 80’s.

The orris. As I noticed last year and then in Rallet, the old Chanel has a distinct orris, powdery-buttery note that is not so obvious in the modern. You can smell the jasmine-orris effect while in the modern the ylang covers all that.

To conclude, the main differences are: animalic, ylang, vanilla, sandalwod, and orris. The modern seems a polished version and … modernized but the differences are obvious by contrast (otherwise it can be called the same perfume minus the animalic note). The drydown of vintage No. 5 has an unmistakable beauty, soft, powdery, human that stays days on the blotter. Why even the No5 extract smells different is not an easy subject. I love both of them but still, I prefer the vintage No5. It has more life and history in it.

I found your No 5 perfume sample to be quite versatile in fact even more versatile than my Guerlain Vega. I haven't tried your EDT No 5 yet so I'll give that a go.

The No 19 perfume extract was great although I still have to give the nod to the EDT concentration. Surprisingly I received a few complements when I wore No 19 EDT at the office. I still need to try the 1970s formulation of the EDT concentration.

Recently I received a No 22 perfume concentration sample vial so I'll be reviewing that one.

Have you tried No 46? There was a individual a few years back that was selling off these bottles. Unfortunately she no longer is active on Basenotes.
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
I received a generous decant from Bois Des Iles EDC from Tradition from one of his bottles. It has a strong aldehyde note with ylang ylang and iris florals. After development it led to a gorgeous sandalwood base with vanilla and orientals to sweeten it.

Here's a photo of his bottles. One of them has an English title instead: Wood of the Iles, I wonder why they used English titles on some of their bottles during certain time periods.
View attachment 109612
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
I've also never tried vintage Gardenia. We have the edt and edp minis of the Les Exclusifs versions.

A lot of the vintage Chanel I've tried, like Dior and Guerlain, is likely from the 1970s at the earliest. Other than sample passes, like the MixerScent and Purecaramel pass with some old fragrances, I rarely try anything pre-70s. I would, but I'm happy enough with the more recent, less expensive bottles.

I really do have trouble telling Miss Dior, No. 5, and Mitsouko apart in the top notes, right after my housemate has put one on. I also struggle to identify No. 19 in the first few seconds of smelling it, but I usually don't confuse it with one of those three.

I love No. 5. I think it's underrated on Basenotes, at times. It's so ubiquitous, I think it can feel less special than something rarer, but just going by the smell and performance, 70s to 90s No. 5 is top shelf in any concentration. The concentrations are different - even quite different from each other - they're all good. Any old bottle of No. 5 is pretty much better than any perfume I might find for sale retail today, even if the No. 5 is a partial edt for sale on eBay with a scuffed label, only 20 ml remaining in a 100-ml bottle, and going for $12.99 with free shipping.

I can usually identify No. 22 really quickly. It has a different incense note that to me is frankincense, whereas No. 5 is more of a sandalwood/nag champa incense. Cuir de Russie has the leather added, and just as much civet as No. 5. Bois des Iles isn't so different. I can also confuse it with No. 5.

I was in an auction for No. 46 in the last year, and it didn't go for that much, around $150. For vintage Cuir de Russie and Bois des Iles, we have edt sprays. They're both impeccably good. The Cuir de Russie is my domestic partner's favorite along with Miss Dior.

I did find Guerlain Vega (2005 re-issue) a very good version of an aldehydic floral, pretty much in the mix with vintage fragrances.

We have a bunch of No. 22 - edc, edt, parfum. The edt is probably my favorite, in the white canister bottle. The bottle is grimy - it's hard to keep white looking its best - but the juice is good. Jules wears it about every other week. It is a good match for a professional. It smells like a serious work fragrance.

Chanel Pour Monsieur (1955) is really unisex. On the women's side, I haven't experienced Chanel going all in on oak moss the way Guerlain did with Mitsouko and Sous le Vent, but with Chanel Pour Monsieur they did, and it's a great one. On par with the Chanel's marketed to women from the 1920s.
 

hednic

Well-known member
Oct 25, 2007
Only vintage Chanels I have are

Bois Nois
Egoiste
Antaeus
Pour Monsieur

And any other masculine Chanels originally released (whatever is missing from above)
 

Diamondflame

Frag Bomber 1st Squadron
Basenotes Plus
Jun 28, 2009
Following thread with much interest. I LOVE Chanel fragrances. Only thing stopping me from acquiring more was the sheer no. of variations you could get. Edc, edt, edp, parfum, in different vintages and packaging. Honestly, I don’t even know where to begin lol.
 

Democritus

Well-known member
Mar 7, 2017
I've also never tried vintage Gardenia. We have the edt and edp minis of the Les Exclusifs versions.

A lot of the vintage Chanel I've tried, like Dior and Guerlain, is likely from the 1970s at the earliest. Other than sample passes, like the MixerScent and Purecaramel pass with some old fragrances, I rarely try anything pre-70s. I would, but I'm happy enough with the more recent, less expensive bottles.

I really do have trouble telling Miss Dior, No. 5, and Mitsouko apart in the top notes, right after my housemate has put one on. I also struggle to identify No. 19 in the first few seconds of smelling it, but I usually don't confuse it with one of those three.

I love No. 5. I think it's underrated on Basenotes, at times. It's so ubiquitous, I think it can feel less special than something rarer, but just going by the smell and performance, 70s to 90s No. 5 is top shelf in any concentration. The concentrations are different - even quite different from each other - they're all good. Any old bottle of No. 5 is pretty much better than any perfume I might find for sale retail today, even if the No. 5 is a partial edt for sale on eBay with a scuffed label, only 20 ml remaining in a 100-ml bottle, and going for $12.99 with free shipping.

I can usually identify No. 22 really quickly. It has a different incense note that to me is frankincense, whereas No. 5 is more of a sandalwood/nag champa incense. Cuir de Russie has the leather added, and just as much civet as No. 5. Bois des Iles isn't so different. I can also confuse it with No. 5.

I was in an auction for No. 46 in the last year, and it didn't go for that much, around $150. For vintage Cuir de Russie and Bois des Iles, we have edt sprays. They're both impeccably good. The Cuir de Russie is my domestic partner's favorite along with Miss Dior.

I did find Guerlain Vega (2005 re-issue) a very good version of an aldehydic floral, pretty much in the mix with vintage fragrances.

We have a bunch of No. 22 - edc, edt, parfum. The edt is probably my favorite, in the white canister bottle. The bottle is grimy - it's hard to keep white looking its best - but the juice is good. Jules wears it about every other week. It is a good match for a professional. It smells like a serious work fragrance.

Chanel Pour Monsieur (1955) is really unisex. On the women's side, I haven't experienced Chanel going all in on oak moss the way Guerlain did with Mitsouko and Sous le Vent, but with Chanel Pour Monsieur they did, and it's a great one. On par with the Chanel's marketed to women from the 1920s.

I'm not sure how the oldest CPM edt compared to the aftershave but I've recently finished a bottle of Chanel - A Gentleman's Aftershave ( the use of the different name for CPM is apparently complicated and difficult to write a timeline for depending on which side of the Atlantic one is ) but anyway I'd never have thought of the aftershave being anywhere near unisex, but now that you mention it then maybe. It's heavy on oakmoss and cardamom and noticeably less sweet and smooth than the current edt.
 

Earlyn

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Jun 14, 2019
I love No. 5. I think it's underrated on Basenotes, at times. It's so ubiquitous, I think it can feel less special than something rarer, but just going by the smell and performance, 70s to 90s No. 5 is top shelf in any concentration. The concentrations are different - even quite different from each other - they're all good. Any old bottle of No. 5 is pretty much better than any perfume I might find for sale retail today, even if the No. 5 is a partial edt for sale on eBay with a scuffed label, only 20 ml remaining in a 100-ml bottle, and going for $12.99 with free shipping.
I’ve neglected the bottles of No. 5 I inherited from my mom but your post has reminded me to bring them out again.
20ml for $12.99! Those ugly partial bottles on sale are great bargains and the route I go to try some of the more expensive stuff.
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
I’ve neglected the bottles of No. 5 I inherited from my mom but your post has reminded me to bring them out again.
20ml for $12.99! Those ugly partial bottles on sale are great bargains and the route I go to try some of the more expensive stuff.

Would that include both sprayers and splash bottles? Splash bottles you have to be careful of.

I'm wearing vintage No 22 for the first time and find it very similar in style to vintage No 5 except with the absence of a few notes present in the other. I'm finding a day and night different between the vintages and what is available today.
 

Earlyn

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Jun 14, 2019
Would that include both sprayers and splash bottles? Splash bottles you have to be careful of.
I have a No. 5 lipstick perfume spray, a large cologne spray, and a glass-stopper extrait, all originally purchased at the same time c. Mid 60-early 70 - they are all intact and good but there are slight differences in the spray and splash perfumes at the top, with the splash being sharper. The cologne and the splash extrait are most similar top and middle, but I could see layering the cologne with either the splash extrait or the spray perfume and having slightly different but pleasant effects. As I am live testing now I can smell that the dry down of the spray perfume maintains a slight sweetness over the splash extrait, and the cologne has more animalic smells (flowery pee, sweaty skin - nice), later on than the other two. Do those descriptions seem accurate or would any of that indicate degrading?
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
The cologne and the splash extrait are most similar top and middle

I've commented before about how the edc and the parfum can be quite similar.

The odd one out for me is the edt - and some edc's. There are some extra animalic edc's. Those are outside the norm of the typical No. 5 scent profile as I know it. The animalic No. 5 I have is the 45-ml black lipstick edc.

The big, 3.2-ounce clear-glass spray edc/cologne is a lot like the parfums I've tried, with a clean floral (jasmine), slightly powdery and woody. It's an all-rounder scent, with a little bit of everything. A big spray is so fun. The animalics are in the base and more subdued than the 45-ml edc.

About your other impressions, they sound spot to me, and the juices sound divine. If flowery pee and nice, sweaty skin are wrong, I don't want to be right.

The vintage (90s) edt is a little different because it can sometimes smell like shaving cream to me. I really like it, I'm sometimes thrown off by it. When the jasmine is prominent, the effect goes away, but there's something in the opening that suggests a close, clean shave.

Here’s a picture of No. 5 Cologne.

54DCDE41-5A07-48E9-A54D-AE26F74EF58A.jpg
 
Last edited:

Earlyn

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Jun 14, 2019
I've commented before about how the edc and the parfum can be quite similar.
The vintage (90s) edt is a little different because it can sometimes smell like shaving cream to me. I really like it, I'm sometimes thrown off by it. When the jasmine is prominent, the effect goes away, but there's something in the opening that suggests a close, clean shave.
I like the smell of shaving cream too. Since you are talking about the top here, do you know if the very much older edts also had that shaving cream note?
Here is a picture of my No’ 5s. They are for sure dated between 1965 & 1970-72.
The small spray is 1/4oz parfum and says it is refillable but I can’t seem to figure out how it comes apart. I don’t have the box for the 1 1/4 oz cologne.
A46B9E3A-3D71-46D4-8503-04666E1DBCCC.jpg
Today I’m trying this 1/4 oz Cristalle which is only labeled as “fragrance”. After reading this Primer on Cristalle located here http://www.basenotes.net/threads/441515-A-Primer-on-Chanel-Cristalle I’m still not sure about the date or formulation. There is not the so often described blast of champagne which I was hoping for, but instead I got a stem-y green and cool galbanum that I always love, and then a very nice progression to light melon and something very slight - I do not know what it is but it reminds me of fennel or caraway. The oakmoss is not big as I would expect from other comments, but it supports everything else. Everything is light.
402C6ED5-ACDA-42CB-8622-8401CCE4503C.jpg
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
I like the smell of shaving cream too. Since you are talking about the top here, do you know if the very much older edts also had that shaving cream note?

I don't. I'm curious about the edt's. I'll try to remember to get a picture of the one we have. It didn't come across as shaving cream during the first few months we had it.

I got the big cologne (3.2 ounces) and the small edt (1.2 ounces) around the same time, and I almost had buyer's remorse from getting too small of an edt bottle because I liked it more. I couldn't describe it, but it felt more complexly vibrant. More recently, I've had the impression of a shaving cream smell. This has also coincided with me getting even more into the edc - I like them about equally. The animalic in the edc is really nice.

Today I’m trying this 1/4 oz Cristalle which is only labeled as “fragrance”.

I think that Cristalle is an edt - from the way you describe it, and wasn't it just an edt at first? (I should re-read the primer). I think melon is more forward in the edp.
 

Starblind

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Oct 2, 2013
YAY for this thread!

I am a huge fan of vintage CHANEL and own (or have owned) the extrait and EDT of CdR, BdI, No. 22, and now No. 19.

Vintage Cuir de Russie and No. 19 are my current obsessions, and I would love to try some really old No. 5 and No. 46.

Has anyone on here actually smelled No. 46 and can comment on how it differs from No. 5?
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
YAY for this thread!

I am a huge fan of vintage CHANEL and own (or have owned) the extrait and EDT of CdR, BdI, No. 22, and now No. 19.

Vintage Cuir de Russie and No. 19 are my current obsessions, and I would love to try some really old No. 5 and No. 46.

Has anyone on here actually smelled No. 46 and can comment on how it differs from No. 5?

I've just smelled the vintage No 22 for the first time a couple of day earlier, will be sharing my impressions soon.

I'll be smelling No 46 in the coming days.
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
PLEASE let us know what 46 smells like! (I'm slightly obsessed with "mystery" frags like this one, especially since it's a CHANEL.)

Sample has arrived, I plan to do another live sampling.

No 46 SAMPLE.jpg

375x500.22520.jpg
 

theladymay

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 6, 2015
I don't. I'm curious about the edt's. I'll try to remember to get a picture of the one we have. It didn't come across as shaving cream during the first few months we had it.

I got the big cologne (3.2 ounces) and the small edt (1.2 ounces) around the same time, and I almost had buyer's remorse from getting too small of an edt bottle because I liked it more. I couldn't describe it, but it felt more complexly vibrant. More recently, I've had the impression of a shaving cream smell. This has also coincided with me getting even more into the edc - I like them about equally. The animalic in the edc is really nice.



I think that Cristalle is an edt - from the way you describe it, and wasn't it just an edt at first? (I should re-read the primer). I think melon is more forward in the edp.

The earliest Cristalle was most likely an edt, as there weren't yet any edps at the time - but it was marked simply as fragrance. It's a tad bit different than the eau de toilette that followed shortly after too, or at least it has always seemed so to me. And then the EdP came, and it was definitely heavier on the melon as you say. =)
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
No 46

Long story short - if you enjoy No 5 and No 22, you will likely also enjoy No 46 as well. No 46 was similar to these two to an extent with the absence of the aldehyde and animalistic (No 5 only) notes. There's a strong ylang ylang with rose and other florals that is on top of a woody and spicy base. Since I'm not too fond of aldehyde as much as other individuals might be, I actually enjoy No 46 quite a bit. I'll need to do a side to side comparison between No 5 (and maybe No 22) for a more thorough impression. The performance could be a little bit better but overall I was quite satisfied with No 46.
 

Starblind

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Oct 2, 2013
No 46

Long story short - if you enjoy No 5 and No 22, you will likely also enjoy No 46 as well. No 46 was similar to these two to an extent with the absence of the aldehyde and animalistic (No 5 only) notes. There's a strong ylang ylang with rose and other florals that is on top of a woody and spicy base. Since I'm not too fond of aldehyde as much as other individuals might be, I actually enjoy No 46 quite a bit. I'll need to do a side to side comparison between No 5 (and maybe No 22) for a more thorough impression. The performance could be a little bit better but overall I was quite satisfied with No 46.

Thank you, NCal! I'd LOVE to hear more if you do a side-by-side comparison with No 5. (For some reason I am really fascinated by 46!)
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
Here's an interesting comparison of vintage and new No. 5 written by the expert nose Octavian Coifan, from his now sadly defunct blog:

…The first major difference is the animalic note. No. 5 vintage is animalic as any old, pre 50’s perfume used to be, while modern is not. There is almost a leather note, cuir de russie effect inside, which is not present in the modern version. This cuir note can be an effect from the civet, musc tincture (+nitromusk) + styrax+ jasmin/orris/cassie, but its presence is unmistakable and create what was often said about No5 – the smell of a woman. This is not true for the modern No5 which is more “artificial” without the depth often found in old perfumes.

Just the other day, my wife (a No. 19 devotee) told me, "I was wearing Chanel No. 5 today, and I've decided it's not really for me." To which I responded, "OK, then I won't give you the Chanel No. 5 I just bought."

I had won an auction for a half-full 2 oz. bottle of vintage No. 5 EdC. It arrived today. Curious, I compared it to Mrs. S.' Chanel No. 5 Parfum, which I presume to be relatively recent. At any rate, they seem scarcely the same fragrance, in precisely the manner articulated by Coifan. The animalic aspects of the vintage EdC are more in line with my mid-cen Chanel pour Monsieur than contemporary No. 5. And, as Bavard so eloquently put it, "If flowery pee and nice, sweaty skin are wrong, I don't want to be right."

Of course I'm going to give the Divine Mrs. S. the No. 5 EdC anyway, and see what she thinks of the difference. It may be that she's still a No. 5 girl after all; just not a modern one.
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
Any extra info?

That naming is similar to the 2007 release Chanel Eau de Cologne. This "Pour Monsieur" version, though, has more oakmoss and less white musk.

As light as Pour Monsieur can smell in the opening, the base can be surprisingly strong, nearly heavy, rich and sweet.

What popped out of the drawer looks like a bottle of original PM. To open it or not to open it, that's the real question. Great find!

I'm always going for broke and opening things.
 

N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer

Semi-Retirement
Basenotes Plus
Jul 1, 2011
This popped out today of my father’s drawer... according to him, he received it as a gift in the 70’s haha. Good news is that it’s still sealed!
Any extra info?

View attachment 155938
View attachment 155939
View attachment 155940
View attachment 155941
View attachment 155942

I haven't seen this style bottle for Eau de Cologne, I'm assuming this is the original Pour Monsieur from the 1950s? What a find indeed.
If I was in your shoes I probably would not crack open this bottle, I would have a guilty conscience of destroying something that was well kept intact for over half a century.
 

Andy the frenchy

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2018
I haven't seen this style bottle for Eau de Cologne, I'm assuming this is the original Pour Monsieur from the 1950s? What a find indeed.
If I was in your shoes I probably would not crack open this bottle, I would have a guilty conscience of destroying something that was well kept intact for over half a century.

Based on the info provided by my father, that bottle is probably between 40 and 50 years old.


Thank you all for the info, and advices! I decided to leave it maturate in the drawer of my father for (at least) another year haha
 

Bavard

Wearing Perfume Right Now
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jul 20, 2015
Can anyone tell me if this Chanel spray edp canister is refillable?

I believe so, yes.

Hello, I got this CPM bottle today, kinda curious about what is the age of it. Please share some thoughts about it.

I'm guessing 1970s. It looks like quite a good bottle I'd be happy to have. It looks fresh and new, but "Eau de Toilette" in the large font like that looks old school.
 

Latest News

Top