MaxKruse
Reviews
MaxKruse
Translated
Show original
Modern Cologne - The ideal summer companion
Dear Parfumo-Community
I've been in the perfume business for about 1 1/2 years. At first only as passive reader and now also as active commentator. And while there are other - perhaps more exciting - fragrances, in my first comment I would like to "only" "straighten" the image of the unknown, but incredibly beautiful Neroli Amara. This objective relates in particular to the unjustifiably low rating of 6.7 at the time of the test.
The fragrance itself is wonderfully uncomplicated. I most readily understand it as a very modern interpretation of the classic lemon cologne. The fragrance is deep yellow and ranges from a very tangy lemon opening to a creamy fresh orange blossom finish. The self-set Neroli theme is implemented consistently, but with ease. No dusty 4711 image far and wide. I can smell the lemon in the beginning and the orange blossom in the base. I don't smell pepper and cypress, but I don't want to doubt that they're there. However only in light - the citric back strengthening - variant.
At times, the scent is reminiscent of Petit Matin from MFK. However, it lacks the slightly synthetic note provided by Ambroxan in the Parisian representative. Just like Petit Matin, Neroli Amara manages to build up a beautiful tension between lemony freshness and orange creaminess and reminds us of the working styles of Francis Kurkdjian and Thierry Wasser (compare also Guerlains - Bergamote Calabria), without Quentin Bisch's lack of independence
I was looking for a summer companion for a long time. In the past I ended up at Chanels Eau de Cologne more often. Also a 100ml bottle of Neroli Portofino accompanied me for one summer. Both very beautiful, very different representatives of the classic Cologne series. The former, however, lacks the final rounding in comparison, the latter cannot completely shake off the 4711 ideas. Both have in common that their durability makes them more head note heroes than balanced overall fragrances.
Back to Neroli Amara and back to the order given at the beginning to straighten his image a bit.
First: As a modern Cologne of the classical variety, it is unisex. I can't smell a male touch or a female touch. He shares this sorting error with the aforementioned Eau de Cologne by Chanel.
Secondly: 6.7/10 points (at the time of the evaluation) do not, in my opinion, reflect the fragrance in any way. It's fresh without using too much synthetics. He's citric without a hint of chlorine-cleaning charm. It is surprisingly sticky and persistent for a fragrance that (almost) exclusively uses fresh notes. It is a cologne without looking old-fashioned or wanting to look old-fashioned. The concentration of eau de parfum is also visibly good for him, as it allows him to avoid recourse to synthetic olfactory potentiators.
Third: And I have to grab my own nose. Van Cleef & Arpels... huh, I'm not buying a scent from that. Especially in times when brand identification in the perfume industry begins to influence one's own purchasing decisions, it is easy to overlook this fragrance from this (jewellery?) brand in the confusion of a well-assorted niche perfumery. I'd have missed him myself too if I hadn't been hit by a knowledgeable nose. And that's just when it turned out Scented pearls sometimes have to be worked for and they are not automatically sorted in the first row. It also took me two attempts to "dare". And that was also the starting point for this commentary. The fragrance deserves attention.
He convinced me so that I bought myself a bottle. And that, too, is an important point that I would like to make in general. I am very grateful that many people here evaluate fragrances even if they have only smelled them as samples/fillings. I am just as grateful, however, if they also state this in their comments. Because for me it is quite an important yardstick whether an exuberant comment is followed by the actual investment or not.
To all of you who've made it this far. Thanks for reading and see you soon!
I've been in the perfume business for about 1 1/2 years. At first only as passive reader and now also as active commentator. And while there are other - perhaps more exciting - fragrances, in my first comment I would like to "only" "straighten" the image of the unknown, but incredibly beautiful Neroli Amara. This objective relates in particular to the unjustifiably low rating of 6.7 at the time of the test.
The fragrance itself is wonderfully uncomplicated. I most readily understand it as a very modern interpretation of the classic lemon cologne. The fragrance is deep yellow and ranges from a very tangy lemon opening to a creamy fresh orange blossom finish. The self-set Neroli theme is implemented consistently, but with ease. No dusty 4711 image far and wide. I can smell the lemon in the beginning and the orange blossom in the base. I don't smell pepper and cypress, but I don't want to doubt that they're there. However only in light - the citric back strengthening - variant.
At times, the scent is reminiscent of Petit Matin from MFK. However, it lacks the slightly synthetic note provided by Ambroxan in the Parisian representative. Just like Petit Matin, Neroli Amara manages to build up a beautiful tension between lemony freshness and orange creaminess and reminds us of the working styles of Francis Kurkdjian and Thierry Wasser (compare also Guerlains - Bergamote Calabria), without Quentin Bisch's lack of independence
I was looking for a summer companion for a long time. In the past I ended up at Chanels Eau de Cologne more often. Also a 100ml bottle of Neroli Portofino accompanied me for one summer. Both very beautiful, very different representatives of the classic Cologne series. The former, however, lacks the final rounding in comparison, the latter cannot completely shake off the 4711 ideas. Both have in common that their durability makes them more head note heroes than balanced overall fragrances.
Back to Neroli Amara and back to the order given at the beginning to straighten his image a bit.
First: As a modern Cologne of the classical variety, it is unisex. I can't smell a male touch or a female touch. He shares this sorting error with the aforementioned Eau de Cologne by Chanel.
Secondly: 6.7/10 points (at the time of the evaluation) do not, in my opinion, reflect the fragrance in any way. It's fresh without using too much synthetics. He's citric without a hint of chlorine-cleaning charm. It is surprisingly sticky and persistent for a fragrance that (almost) exclusively uses fresh notes. It is a cologne without looking old-fashioned or wanting to look old-fashioned. The concentration of eau de parfum is also visibly good for him, as it allows him to avoid recourse to synthetic olfactory potentiators.
Third: And I have to grab my own nose. Van Cleef & Arpels... huh, I'm not buying a scent from that. Especially in times when brand identification in the perfume industry begins to influence one's own purchasing decisions, it is easy to overlook this fragrance from this (jewellery?) brand in the confusion of a well-assorted niche perfumery. I'd have missed him myself too if I hadn't been hit by a knowledgeable nose. And that's just when it turned out Scented pearls sometimes have to be worked for and they are not automatically sorted in the first row. It also took me two attempts to "dare". And that was also the starting point for this commentary. The fragrance deserves attention.
He convinced me so that I bought myself a bottle. And that, too, is an important point that I would like to make in general. I am very grateful that many people here evaluate fragrances even if they have only smelled them as samples/fillings. I am just as grateful, however, if they also state this in their comments. Because for me it is quite an important yardstick whether an exuberant comment is followed by the actual investment or not.
To all of you who've made it this far. Thanks for reading and see you soon!
15 Comments
