I usually like cheapos, as many times (more often than many think) they offer some respectable, if not really good quality for the price. And I also happen to love HM by this same brand, which is possibly one of the greatest cheapos on the market; and since HM and HiM often go in pair, I was sure I would have loved this too. Well, not that anyone should care, but I really don’t instead. I tried to like this, but for me this is really a “no” – or well, a “meh”. As many other reviewers already said, HiM smells apparently quite similar to Gucci pour Homme II, the relationship between the two being like comparing a decent hand-crafted leather bag to a 5 EUR polyurethane bag – the cheapest ones, those which are so poorly-crafted you can tell they’re cheap by a mile distance. I don’t want to offend fans of this, but for me HiM is quite the same if compared to Gucci pour Homme II. The notes are quite similar, there’s the same peculiar sort of spicy-tea-woody blend with cinnamon, musk, something pine-balsamic, woods (the exact same exotic, coffee-infused teak wood note you get in Trussardi Inside), piquant “culinary” herbs, something similar to tobacco and an overall sweet/powdery ambiance; but it’s just a bit... wrong for me, on many levels. It smells flashy, cheap, and even oddly unbalanced in a way that on my skin, it smells like something which belonged to a saucepan more than a bottle of perfume. The drydown is a bit better, some screechy edges and dissonances fade away and you get a still cheap, yet quite smooth musky-woody-sweet with an almost fascinating balsamic-culinary-Oriental vibe and a warm, mellow ambery feel. But still I think Gucci pour Homme II plays these same themes ten times better to all extents – elegance, quality, harmony. Since the price gap is tolerable, go for that.