Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I have tried the ones in bold. The Encre Noir went feral on my skin and I belatedly realised that strong vetiver and me do not mix well. Okay if the vetiver is just a side note.

 

Very interested in YSL M7 which is nearly impossible to get nowadays. I assume you have the original version, not the Oud Absolue? I am also trying to track down a vintage version of Gucci Envy. The vintage is yellow in color, as opposed to the reformulated green color.

 

I really like the whole line-up of Maison Francis Kurkdjian, except for Cologne Pour Le Soir.

 

Waiting to get my hands on Djhenne and Wazamba. Should be coming soon.

 

hi these, yes my M7 iis the original regular version but its the formulated version (taller bottle) which is supposed to have more emphasis an amber in the drydown than oud.... has that "smokey cherry cough syruppy" opening note that is hit/miss with many... some online has remarked citrus in the opening but i for one didnt detect it as a prominent note....

 

which reminds me...I gotta revisit the good people in Jasina next time im in Singapore... i always find a few rare gems there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

hi these, yes my M7 iis the original regular version but its the formulated version (taller bottle) which is supposed to have more emphasis an amber in the drydown than oud.... has that "smokey cherry cough syruppy" opening note that is hit/miss with many... some online has remarked citrus in the opening but i for one didnt detect it as a prominent note....

 

which reminds me...I gotta revisit the good people in Jasina next time im in Singapore... i always find a few rare gems there!

 

I have read many comments online that the original M7 is much better.

 

Today, I tried out MFK Aqua Universalis Forte. A very lovely and well crafted scent, but for some, the drydown may smell like laundry detergent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I've only just started venturing into fragrances and clearly, all these English, French and/or Italian names are totally foreign to me.

 

I'm highly interested to check them out though but being based in Singapore, I'm not sure whether they are THAT readily available. Any suggestions on a place/ places where I can get my chance to whiff around? =)

 

For smth English, check out Penhaligon's at Ion. Blenheim Bouquet was used by Churchill, Clinton, Hugh Grant etc. It's an 'in your face', domineering scent. I like Blenheim Bouquet and English Fern, and use them quite a bit. Both are not your run of the mill scents.

 

For the Creed stuff, check out Escentials at Paragon. I have Royal Oud and English Leather.

 

I tend to prefer more classic, distinctive, and masculine scents instead of the more common unisex perfumes around, but have a whiff and let us know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you guys ever tried applying jojoba oil to your skin before applying your frags? apparently it helps to prolong the longetivity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I tend to prefer more classic, distinctive, and masculine scents instead of the more common unisex perfumes around, but have a whiff and let us know what you think.

 

You are probably confusing the poor soul.

 

Classic is meaningless. I presume you mean older/earlier/vintage.

 

Distinctive is a matter of individual olfactory impression.

 

Gender distinction/unisex is a marketing construct.

 

Advice to sniff around is very much on point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) -- from Thefreedictionary

 

clas·sic (klabreve.gifsprime.gifibreve.gifk)adj.

1.

a. Belonging to the highest rank or class.

b. Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture.

c. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.

 

2) -- from Merriam-Webster

 

1clas·sic

adjective \ˈkla-sik\

 

1

a : serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value <classic literary works>

b : traditional, enduring <classic designs>

c : characterized by simple tailored lines in fashion year after year <a classic suit>

...

3

a : historically memorable <a classic battle>

 

Comment:

 

When I say classic, I refer to perfumes that have weathered the test of time, and transcend the vicissitudes of olfactory fashion. Being launched in 1900 and 1781, and still being used today would make smth classic, and timeless, so to speak, no?

 

Here's the description of Blenheim: "Created in 1902 and taking its name from Blenheim Palace the seat of one of England’s most respected bloodlines, Blenheim Bouquet is a bracing mix of citrus oils, spices and woods. Inhaling Blenheim Bouquet today it is hard to imagine it was created over one hundred years ago."

 

And of Royal English Leather by Creed: "Royal English Leather is the first fragrance ever created by the House of CREED, commissioned by King George III in 1781. CREED was the king's glove maker. CREED scented the king's gloves so he could rest his chin on his gloved hand and inhale the glove’s fine aroma. The king found the scent much more pleasing than the scent of the people who came to see him! The king loved the scented gloves so much, he asked CREED to make a fragrance for his body. CREED created Royal English Leather for His Majesty –- and launched the most illustrious dynasty in the history of fragrance: CREED."

 

Though, you're right that I mean older scents in general, but not all but specific older scents.

 

I disagree that gender distinction is solely a marketing construct. Certain scents are distinctively feminine, or rather that we might associate with young teenage girls. I think a lot of perfumes from CK and DKNY for instance fall into such categories. I do know there's a distinction between base notes and even top notes used for these more older scents that are markedly different from those presently used in unisex stuff. You'd hardly find leathery notes, or even peppery notes in feminine perfumes, is another example why I think the gender bifurcation isn't necessarily solely a marketing difference. It might well be because we've been socialized into internalizing the differences and 'naturally' pair certain things and make certain associations, but well, it's still a difference that society, by and large, embraces.

 

When i say distinctive, I mean relative to the mass produced stuff commonly found in malls today. I think it's fairly evident that English Fern and Blenheim are distinctive. I'm sure you know this, but just go to a departmental store like Takashimaya, and smell the perfumes there, and then go to Penhaligon. Wouldn't Blenheim or English Fern stand out? At least my girlfriend thinks it's very distinctive. However, I don't think ALL Penhaligon's fragrances are distinctive -- Sartorial is one example.

 

Yes -- advice is to sniff around. Was directing Junk to try taking a whiff of what I feel as being classic and distinctive scents as per the aforementioned definitions since he said he has no clue on how to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your essay. I am beginning to understand Joonians comments about your insecurities.

 

If you think Penhaligons offering are classic and distinctive, you have not even begun to scratch the surface of the world of fragrance, let alone giving a lengthy essay about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, your comments kind of highlight your evident lack of interest in a discourse because you can't engage at an (or, are to lazy to) intellectual level. This is evidenced by your need to make unrelated assumptions about 'insecurities' without addressing the points. If the points I make are wrong, correct me.

 

I can well call you a whole slew of uncivilized names to your lame-ass response like: a fuckhead, a dickhead, a stupid prick, a shit face, in response to your points, without explaining why, but well, I didn't. I chose to clarify myself.

 

TL: DR: Your comments strike me as being lame.

 

My post wasn't even an essay, rather, I found the need to clarify myself, especially since it's evident that when I wasn't clear by what I mean by 'distinctive' and 'classic' in my original post, you obviously misread me. So, logically, when somebody misunderstands you, what do you do? You shut up? Maybe you do. I choose to clarify why I wrote what I did.

 

*You know, that's why in the legal profession, there's a need to clarify certain nomenclature.

 

Sure, I admit haven't grazed the surface of fragrances -- because I'm not a self-professed fragrance snob. And, really, you're free to talk about distinctive scents (that you, need I remind you, said are subjective). Stop contradicting yourself already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finish yet? Get back to me once you have stopped feeling and acting silly.

 

Yawns. Get back to you? What are you? The President of the United States? Or just a guy who has money (oh! and a perfume snob who has grazed the surface of perfumery) but can't engage intellectually?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you like to engage in, intellectually?

 

By replying to my 'essay' (agreement or otherwise) which was my attempt to explain why I used the words 'classic', 'distinctive' etc, to which you so impolitely responded, no doubt because you took what I wrote personally, and emotionally, instead of objectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that can easily be done without name calling.

 

Briefly, I am also still learning, but in my process of learning, I was taught a few things to avoid.

 

Firstly, scents have no gender. You are right that some scents are associated with gender either through a myriad of factors, but for purposes of the OP, saying a scent is masculine without explanation will confuse and mislead. Hence my reply that gender in fragrances is predominantly a marketing construct.

 

Secondly, classic has no meaning by itself. You have clarified it to a certain extent, however, whether a scent is classic does not depend solely on its age since inception. Further, you also need to account for reformulations of the old stuff since the advent of IFRA, and the increasing number of substances now prohibited in fragrances.

 

Thirdly, distinctive is subjective, as scents usually evoke memories, and memories differ from person to person. And distinctive does not mean it cannot be a mass brand eg CD Poison, Chanel 5. As such, being dependent on unique memories, saying that you like distinctive fragrances is meaningless.

 

Hope this helps. Calm down and stop feeling defensive. It is only the Kerbau.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that can easily be done without name calling.

 

Briefly, I am also still learning, but in my process of learning, I was thought a few things to avoid.

 

Firstly, scents have no gender. You are right that some scents are associated with gender either through a myriad of factors, but for purposes of the OP, saying a scent is masculine without explanation will confuse and mislead. Hence my reply that gender in fragrances is predominantly a marketing construct.

 

Secondly, classic has no meaning by itself. You have clarified it to a certain extent, however, whether a scent is classic does not depend solely on its age since inception. Further, you also need to account for reformulations of the old stuff since the advent of IFRA, and the increasing number of substances now prohibited in fragrances.

 

Thirdly, distinctive is subjective, as scents usually evoke memories, and memories differ from person to person. And distinctive does not mean it cannot be a mass brand eg CD Poison, Chanel 5. As such, being dependent on unique memories, saying that you like distinctive fragrances is meaningless.

 

Hope this helps. Calm down and stop feeling defensive. It is only the Kerbau.

 

I replied civilly, interested in what you had to say, and hoped to clarify myself, to which you began saying stuff about me ...

 

First: I agree with this, which is why I clarified what I meant.

 

Second: When I use the word, classic, I mean it in it's dictionary sense. I'm obviously not clued into the parlance of perfumery, so I definitely, didn't mean it in any technical sense. Rather, I was trying to explain 'classic' in the sense of smth that is rather timeless (though I'm aware that perfume concoctions have been reformulated, so it might be true that some perfumes whilst retaining their original names, are 'newer' blends).

 

Third: Distinctive is 'subjective' but I was trying to distinguish it from the over-the-counter types. For instance, Tom Ford Oud, is really quite distinctive from most CK, RL, DKNY, Clinique scents, as is Penhaligon's Hammam Bouquet, some of Malle's stuff (like Une Rose), as is Chanel Pour Monsieur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i may have used the word insecurities in a rather inelegant fashion, could certainly be better put. The impression of insecurity is conveyed when I am presented with such a lengthy diatribe on very minor issues, certainly not warranting a dictionary reference.

 

I think what you mean by distinctive is a reference to unusual or unique. Again this is subjective. Context is important. TF Oud is nothing unusual to Middle Easterners who grew up with Oud oils. Vetiver and sandalwood may be distinctive to westerners but are meh to Indians. Jasmine is meh to Chinese, but would be distinctive to Australians.

 

And Clinique Happy for Men is certainly very distinctive, but would be described as OTC. You see the problem with the term distinctive now?

 

P/s Chanel Pour Monsieur is also one of my favourites but this citrus based fragrance is nothing distinctive, although it is certainly a classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said. I wrote that 'essay' to clarify my position lest I am misunderstood, and gauging from your recent post, I probably should have clarified certain baseline assumptions, like for instance, the assumption is that the OP is a Chinese man from Singapore who has experience with brands like Ck, Clinique, DKNY etc which are the norm, and fragrances that are in vogue. Not a Middle-Easterner etc. And in this context, certain scents (and even brands) are uncommon and distinctive. If you read the OP's question, he is asking where one should go and have a whiff of these more 'uncommon' scents. I was answering to his qn.

 

I don't think Clinique Happy is distinctive. Smells like another citrus-y scent to me.

 

If you think I've launched into a lengthy diatribe when all I'm doing is to clarify myself, I think you should read legal contracts, or academic articles for that matter. Not everybody who rationalizes his stance and clarifies what he means is 'insecure'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read legal contracts everyday too, hence I do not relish reading lengthy wordy stuff elsewhere. I am only telling you how I see it, and if you say you are not insecure, that's fine, mea culpa and we move on, hopefully in a more succinct manner.

 

Happy's distinctiveness, to me at least, is that it evokes happiness or perhaps memories of happiness. It probably does not evoke the same thing with you, and if so, then it is just another citrus scent. No disagreement there.

 

P/S how did you know OP is a Chinese?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because my friend knows him -- unless, of course, he is of a different race but has a Chinese name.

 

*Whether I'm insecure or not (or whether I think I am or not) is besides the point -- what I found disconcerting, and you agreed was expressed without tact, was how you labelled people as such. It might well be 'stupid' or 'idiot', or 'senseless'. But let's move on. No pt harping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are such a unique fucking piece of work, on par with our friend Fiddler, maybe even worse, given your Oedipal complex.

 

After all that vitriol and insults you have heaped in retaliation, such being out of all proportions to whatever perceived slight you may have received, you now come back like a fucking spoilt child blabbering more platitudes dressed up amongst more insults. I was being more than gracious in the face of your condescending infantile attitude, but it appears that you cannot take the hint. It does not take a genius with a PhD in psychology to see the extent of your insecurity wrapped up in that sense of self-entitlement, coupled with the worst characteristics of a lawyer on display, of special mention being the "I gotta have the last word attitude". Well mate, take a hint, the kerbau is infested with lawyers, and you aint nothing special.

 

Your insecurity- I am now making it a point, since you are hopeless at letting things go. And I have not even started on all the other less than flattering aspects, including, but not limited to, your pathetic attempt to throw fancy names around such as Malle and Tom Ford in a ridiculous but totally unnecessary attempt to hide your lack of knowledge in scents.

 

I have all night, and all the time in the world, unlike other lawyers chained to timesheets. So give it your best shot, fucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Lame, irrational, and unsubstantiated -- Can't be bothered to engage with the emotional and irrrrrrrrational. Have a nice day. :D

 

But just one example below to substantiate my above statement about not only your irrationality, but your emotional temperament akin to a girl kicking up a hissy fit. LOL.

 

First you call me 'insecure', then you say 'mea culpa and we move on' (as if people use that term in legal contracts. You had to Google it?) as if I was defending myself. AND then you jump back and say I'm 'insecure' again. Now you say I have Oedipal Complex where you insinuate I want to 'have sex with my mother'?

 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA. HAHHAHHA. You're so emotional and fickle like a girl it's hilarious.

 

You are such a unique fucking piece of work, on par with our friend Fiddler, maybe even worse, given your Oedipal complex.

 

 

In psychoanalytic theory, the term Oedipus complex ... concentrates upon a child's desire to sexually possess the parent of the opposite sex (e.g. males attracted to their mothers, whereas females are attracted to their fathers)

 

http://en.wikipedia....Oedipus_complex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on cue, like a dog to a dog bowl, another piece of verbose self justifying post as befits a writer with an inflated sense of his puny abilities.

 

And congratulations, you got Oedipal complex correct. Exactly what I mean, if you are not too dense to get it.

 

Finally, insulting me by attributing characteristics of a female to me highlights the extent of your ignorance.

 

I did say move on, and it would have been so until you decided to edit your post to raise the issue of insecurity again.

 

Here doggy, try to have a last bark.

 

Pathetic. And you say I am petty? What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on cue, like a dog to a dog bowl, another piece of verbose self justifying post as befits a writer with an inflated sense of his puny abilities.

 

And congratulations, you got Oedipal complex correct. Exactly what I mean, if you are not too dense to get it.

 

Finally, insulting me by attributing characteristics of a female to me highlights the extent of your ignorance.

 

I did say move on, and it would have been so until you decided to edit your post to raise the issue of insecurity again.

 

Here doggy, try to have a last bark.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Your post proves my point about your irrationality and emotional fits akin to a girl. And yes, I like to have the last 'bark' BECAUSE I'm competitive, and argumentative.

 

Deal with it. Or beat me intellectually.

 

PS: Though in this case, I needn't say much more given your irrationality and emotional disposition. I argue with LOGIC. You might need to marshal support to help you, or take consolation in how you need others to verify your assessment of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beat you? You are so far behind it is not even funny. And i don't compete with dogs.

 

I see you still did not get the Oedipal complex. You must be stupider than I thought.

 

P/s and the dog is finally silent in front of its master. Piss easy, slightly disappointed.

 

P/s/s With continual editing, your anal and imbecilic tendencies are further glorified. Instead of beating you (to a pulp), you now added the word intellectually. A sparkling intellect that cannot get it right the first time, and need to slink around with edits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×