01/08/2013
7.5 7.5 6.0/10

Sherapop
1239 Reviews

Sherapop
Another minimalist, slightly sweet skin scent
My initial testings of perfumes from the house of Clean were not that positive, so for a while I steered clear of them, having concluded that my taste in soap simply differed too much from that of the Clean perfumers and Creative Director.
After reading how they were excoriated in The Holey[sic] Book, however, I developed an interest in trying more, not fewer, creations from this house, perversely enough. Since then, I've been slowly accumulating samples and minis from various sources, along with a few bottles from TJMAXX, which generally cost $9.95 or $12.95. The master plan in my mind is one day to conduct a Clean sweep: a suite of reviews of the perfumes of this house.
One of the more recent samples to have come my way is that of CLEAN SKIN, which was launched only last year and so was included in one of the Sephora promotional coffrets which I sometimes purchase as a way of finding out what's going on with the current mainstream designer fragrance scene. Since I just reviewed Laurence Dumont MUSC BLANC, which to me was a clean skin scent, I figured: why not review a perfume by that name?
CLEAN SKIN is another eminently well-named fragrance. This one lacks the house of Clean's characteristic soap note, which I do not really like. I do like some soap notes (WHITE LINEN, among others), but the Clean soap note is not that appealing to me. Fortunately, there is no soap whatsoever to be sniffed in this case. Instead, what we have here is indeed very similar to the Laurence Dumont MUSC BLANC: clean musk with a touch of sweetness. The smell of a freshly bathed baby's bottom!
So, my fragrant friends who desire to waft of the scent of a freshly bathed baby's bottom--well rinsed, and towel dried, BEFORE any powder has been applied or diapers put on--I am happy to report that you have some options! CLEAN SKIN is a bit better to my nose than MUSC BLANC, because it does not have an obnoxious alcohol opening. So I'd recommend this composition before the Laurence Dumont. It's nice, for what it is. But it is what is, and it's not what it's not...
After reading how they were excoriated in The Holey[sic] Book, however, I developed an interest in trying more, not fewer, creations from this house, perversely enough. Since then, I've been slowly accumulating samples and minis from various sources, along with a few bottles from TJMAXX, which generally cost $9.95 or $12.95. The master plan in my mind is one day to conduct a Clean sweep: a suite of reviews of the perfumes of this house.
One of the more recent samples to have come my way is that of CLEAN SKIN, which was launched only last year and so was included in one of the Sephora promotional coffrets which I sometimes purchase as a way of finding out what's going on with the current mainstream designer fragrance scene. Since I just reviewed Laurence Dumont MUSC BLANC, which to me was a clean skin scent, I figured: why not review a perfume by that name?
CLEAN SKIN is another eminently well-named fragrance. This one lacks the house of Clean's characteristic soap note, which I do not really like. I do like some soap notes (WHITE LINEN, among others), but the Clean soap note is not that appealing to me. Fortunately, there is no soap whatsoever to be sniffed in this case. Instead, what we have here is indeed very similar to the Laurence Dumont MUSC BLANC: clean musk with a touch of sweetness. The smell of a freshly bathed baby's bottom!
So, my fragrant friends who desire to waft of the scent of a freshly bathed baby's bottom--well rinsed, and towel dried, BEFORE any powder has been applied or diapers put on--I am happy to report that you have some options! CLEAN SKIN is a bit better to my nose than MUSC BLANC, because it does not have an obnoxious alcohol opening. So I'd recommend this composition before the Laurence Dumont. It's nice, for what it is. But it is what is, and it's not what it's not...
1 Replies