AndreasK

The Green Wood is a 1:1 copy of Dior Homme Eau de Cologne. I smell absolutely no difference and wonder how the lists of ingredients listed here can be so different. So, on a musk base, there is a fruity fresh layer on top. At Dior Homme EdC that's supposed to be bergamot and grapefruit blossom. Perhaps a finer nose than mine will smell differences in value. The basic idea up to the at least rough implementation, however, is identical.

What do you do with such shameless copying? Compare the price? I'm not. I stick to the original. After all, creativity must be appreciated. Is it a compliment for Dior to be so shamelessly copied? In a way, yes, it is.

Guerlain's Mouchoir Pour Monsieur comes from the time shortly after the turn of the 20th century and seems to me like the forerunner of the great Habit Rouge EdT from the 60s.

The prelude is a subdued citric note. In the course of time, the fragrance develops into a powdery, animalistic one. Whereby also this is very dimmed. So you could say that the idea for Habit Rouge had already been realized in the Mouchoir, but not yet expressively implemented. However, the difference in expressiveness between handkerchief (Mouchoir) and tailcoat (Habit) is very clear. In the Habit Rouge the prelude of bitter orange is violent, in the Mouchoir the bergamot (?) is only discreetly audible. Even the animalistic-powdery heart note is only dimly silent here and virulently agitated there.

I don't like the dimmed ones at the mouchoir. I much prefer the loud expression of the Habit Rouge. With Mouchoir, you always have to go into yourself to be aware of the characteristics. A perfume should already radiate and draw attention to itself. To be found by the seeker is not enough for a perfume. It may also be the overstimulation of our time, which requires strong signals. But that's the way it is.

Furthermore, with the mouchoir, I have the impression from the top note onwards that a certain cacophony prevails. The components do not seem to fit together properly. This shortcoming goes right through to heart trouble. This may be due to the fact that in 120 years the taste has changed somewhat. But especially the heart note I would describe as grey. That's the association that evokes the animalistic, dimmed, something disharmonic. When I close my eyes, I see a horse stable in front of me at Habit, and a woodshed in a garden at Mouchoir.

All in all, I advise against buying. If you want a classic, complex, expressive powdery-animal scent of complex French perfumery, you should go for Habit Rouge. In it has found to perfection what in the Mouchoir de Monsieur only exists in the idea. Time has passed over the mouchoir. Guerlain should rest in peace

We are dealing with a chypre in Beau de Jour. Spontaneously it reminds us of Cerruti 1881, but in comparison to these it is much more discreet. Cerruti 1881 had a metallic strength in itself. BdJ on the other hand is more discreet, with understatement.

What I like less about BdJ is its somewhat soapy appearance. One has the feeling to be dealing with a bathroom article. Also it seems a little bit disharmoniously scratchy.

However, this should only reduce the positive overall impression in moderation. Basically it is a discreet interpretation of green-harsh freshness. I consider it suitable for the warmer, brighter sunny days. He has a charm of cypress grove and dry pine forest

BdJ is a good smell, but not a very good one. As I said, Cerruti 1881 - for me the measure in this category - was (unfortunately discontinued) stronger in charisma and more harmonious in tuning. An equally discreet chypre with a harmonious and high quality appearance is Acqua di Parmas Cipresso di Toscana.

I can clearly recommend BdJ for purchase. But if you share my opinion after testing, I would advise you to try to get hold of a bottle of Cerruti 1881 from leftover stocks or to go for the Acqua di Parma.

Better is the enemy of good.

The EdP was actually an intensification of the fragrance to the EdT. It was intended to complement the original, which was generally criticised for being too weak in terms of durability, and this was only partially successful. The durability of the EdP was slightly better, but was itself criticised by many as always too inadequate. One might think that the Intense version is a further intensification of the fragrance while retaining The One fragrance characteristic. But far from it; the 2020 version is not a flanker, but an independent new fragrance!

I'm not a marketing expert. But the purpose of trademarks seems to me to be to identify a certain content to the consumer under a name that is emblematic for him. However, if different contents are marketed under the same name, this purpose is counteracted. This is what D&G is doing now with the Intense of The One, which has nothing to do with The One. The result is likely to be customer confusion and dilution of the brand. I don't understand what such self-destruction is good for. Perhaps it is understood in the Dior house, where a comparable faux pas was committed with the 2020 version of Homme.

The One EdT and EdP are tobacco-like, aromatic, distinctly sweet, voluptuous fragrances that have their counterparts in the world of spirits, such as Amaretto, which is why the bottle is also supposed to be reminiscent of an Amaretto bottle. What I find problematic with them is the clearly too synthetic implementation of the basically good fragrance idea. If the implementation were more valuable, the two could be classics for a long time.

The 2020 non-fangler is a discreetly aromatic, not overly sweet, spicy flavor. He seems very subtle to me; too subtle. I would expect more impact from an Intense fragrance, presumably for the dark season. It seems to be the new trend to exercise restraint in terms of the strength of expression. I'm very sorry

I don't really know where to take The One Intense. It does not stand out from the group of aromatics designers. Dior's Sauvage Parfum is much more present than Duft. Overall, I consider The One Intense to be dispensable. It's hardly likely to bother anyone. But who'd miss it if he didn't exist? No one.

The new Dior Homme EdT is a catastrophe; 1. because there is no iris in it anymore and 2. because it has a dim, faint scent.

To speak of gutting the oldest Dior Homme is not possible. Even an understatement has its limits. The scent is barely noticeable after spraying on. I sprayed twice on a strip of paper and had to stop to notice something.

That which is perceptible I would call a weak shadowy veil. Only of what? Iris, as I said, is not. Amber comes to mind. The overall view of the components in the interaction has a slightly spicy, aromatic effect on me.

The old fragrance, the original is not recognizable in the 2020 version. After Dior has already polished the 2012 version to the point of characterlessness with the Sport version 2017, the EdT version is now taking over. I would classify the 2020 version as an ultra-light summer scent. The scruples at Dior have probably been enough to keep the old version as the "original" in the range. You got lucky again!

The Dior Sauvage EdP has already been heavily relieved. But it has retained its quality. She can be said to have transformed a winter scent into a spring and summer one. The Dior Homme EdT has now undergone homeopathic treatment. Fragrance DNA is only present in dilutions of several powers of ten.

I'm already worried about the Fahrenheit EdT! An evil spirit has been haunting the Dior house lately.