Translated Show originalShow translation
Nothing better comes after...
An old German proverb says "Nothing better can ever come of it". In this concern, I was surprised to see in the shelves the actually how many flankers of the original and so successful Acqua di Gio.
Profondo. Profund, meaning thorough, deep and all-embracing. Okay, strong message, let's see. My expectation was reinforced by the well-known, but here nicely dyed blue bottle, a typical Italian blue, which the gentlemen like to wear on their boots as a suit color. Optically, all traffic lights are green, let's go.
The prelude, hmmmm. The similarity to the original Acqua di Gio is clearly visible. What's different? I think this blue flanker smells massively more synthetic than its big brother does. Sure, bergamot here and there, but when two do the same thing, it's nowhere near the same. So let's give the fragrance some time to develop, especially since the tested eau de parfum already presents quite a lot.
What does the world look like after 10 minutes? Honestly, little changed and I mean unfortunately, little intoxicating. I still hear strong bergamot hints, but the synthetic stuff left and right of it can be anything but inspiring. I'm overcome by a washing-up reflex, but I bravely resist it, because how else can you get a halfway decent review after hours of wearing it.
But even after hours, the Profondo is just a tired dish of its so high class original, I can't see a great course over time with the best will in the world. Until the end (and there we are talking about nine hours) light musk and patchouli notes are brought to light like the original. And there's really nothing more to say or to write about.
What does all this add up to in the end from my point of view for a rating?
As explained above: The bottle is simply beautiful, classic in design and colour. Very successful, I think.
Sillage: Initially strong, but then also strongly declining. Already after 2 hours it can hardly be described as such.
Durability: More than just neat. Nine to ten hours are inside, but the woman has to come very close to the man, that is, at least a hand's distance, to sniff something.
Well, and the smell itself: If it didn't exist, I'd say that hardly anyone would cry out for it. Too trivial, not enough independent, not enough incisive, not differentiated enough.
And so the stale feeling remains that the consumer is to be robbed of his money with the umpteenth flanker of a great litter, namely the original. Certainly not mine, for that it needs a little more imagination. Well, others do it similarly, see Baldessarini, also here a hammer first scent was followed by countless partly quite unimaginative by-products, which unfortunately only dilute the original in the end.
As for Profondo, the durability, yes, I certify that it is profound. Otherwise, no test and certainly no purchase recommendation for me. But tastes are different, as we all know