Fhfhfh

Among the various types of perfume, the "theatrical" ones are my favourite.
In order not to be misunderstood, here are not meant genres like "fougere, gourmant or chypre" etc. But the way they perform. There are the "linear ones", which, big bang, are sprayed into the world and remain unchangeably in it and then, finally, at some point, blow away unchanged. Or the "classic three-parts", which after their inherent countdown burn down their built-in engine stages: Head, heart and base.
And then the theatre on the back of your hand - I count "Henry Cotton's In Red" among these. On the theatre, acting persons appear, often in unexpected order, and then have their trade and conversation with and against each other. This is, depending on the play presented, by no means a chaotic or random affair and something like the division into three or five acts will always be comprehensible. Only just as in Musikantenstadl, where everyone has always agreed, so it will not be in a real drama.

As far as the acting staff at "Henry Cotton's In Red" is concerned, the list of fragrances above provides information on this. No plot line here either. It's just the nice observation that the play is different every time, every day. Didn't the leather guy (who isn't listed at all) with Dame Rose have a pining scene yesterday, that it just crashed? And today opposite her so cool, but now so winking coquettishly with Jungfer Alpenveilchen ?
Everybody makes up their own mind. But the show is not quite so G-rated - and is also clearly aimed at men. Strong, but not loud. Already clear, direct address, no sex - but in no way rough-hewn. The play is undisguised and funny. On and with a self-confident woman it must be a blast.

Little is known about the Henry Cotton's perfume line (but I haven't made a research project out of it either). Obviously a textile merchant who treated himself to a triplet of perfume in 1989 and won a grand prize. Later, there were sparingly further attempts to follow up on that, but the results seem to have been sobering - I don't know what they were.

So, and now comes the bad news: if you are interested, you have to hurry very much. The death of the species has actually already occurred long ago (the moon prices testify to it), but from time to time a specimen still shows itself in affordable innocence.

The other two - "Henry Cotton's In Green" and "Henry Cotton's In Blue" - are brotherly pieces in spirit. I have miniatures of them, but they have retreated into the untraceability of distant boxes. However, the memory of them had made me acquire "In Red".

Looking forward to the next performance

Well, we Rangers don't have it easy. I didn't say that to get sympathy.
Our favorite remedies are volatile, like ghosts in daylight. Fir, spruce, Swiss stone pine, conifer, juniper (forest?) & Co.: as racy top notes (= genie from the bottle) they overwhelm us and make us believe in eternal fulfilment (= lasting durability). But the beautiful appearance quickly collapses - usually every minute. This is often followed by a grumpy mixture of oakmoss (lasts long, but is actually not very woody), earthy patchouli notes (nothing against it) and/or general woodiness (cedar and family).
But that's not what the Ranger is looking for.
He wants to immerse himself in the shady, damp green under the trees - and he wants to stay there. This may be earthy/mushroomy (but not too much), may be bitter (but not sweet at all), woody green anyway - and may also develop. But it has to remain a forest.
"Tears of Eros" - I won't go into the name at all, see below - offers this: you enter the forest and a beautiful, diverse spectrum of aromas opens up. In the course of time, the little spoon keeps its character, changes too, but also stays strongly on track - with great performance. So, the great world theatre does not take place here - everything remains in the forest. And that is far more than other representatives of the genre can do.

To speak briefly against two curious reservations.
* "Tears of Eros" is a really dumb name. That's what it has in common with what's felt to be 70% of all perfume names. It has long been incomprehensible to me how an industry that belongs to the luxury segment, where actually everything has to be right - packaging, advertising, faces, costumes - so many stupid names are launched. Can you not afford the 25€ for a linguistically creative employee? It remains a secret. However, it also remains incomprehensible to me how one can make such a stupid name the subject of a fragrance review.
* I cannot understand how there is so much talk of "synthetic" ingredients. It is well known that far more than 80% of all fragrances in current perfumery consist of aroma chemical substances - but this is not very noticeable here in ToE (in contrast to 98.5% of all substances marked as "Oud", which are usually 100% synthetic and smell like this). Why especially here "synthetics" are detected - I cannot understand it.
Finally, the information I am often looking for: We are talking about an EdP of which 50ml had the retail price of 155€ (2020.03).
It was worth the price. Also in view of the fact that 19 evaluators were only able to win for a 58% rating. One, in my view, grossly undervalued share.
This is the opinion of a ranger
People who prefer to stay in the comfort zone may stay away. It is not for everyone (but it is not extreme in any way).