5 years ago
For admiring 'observation', definitely, the classic florals, although some are either 'too much' (powdery, heavy) or just do not feel like myself - therefore, 'detached, aesthetic admiration'.
From the few I came to know and own, I do love and wear some I do not feel mismatched with, the easier and more delicate ones like Mme Rochas or Arpège. The new formulation of L'Aimant, on the other hand, felt too rosy-vanillic sweet, somewhat too 'lovely & youthful' for me, in regards to the inner attitude.
I simply can't find any attraction to the second category of edibles and the ones which all seem to have some certain common base - I initially thought perhaps it was some kind of characteristic of what many people called 'drugstore fragrances'. But after smelling through many popular 'mainstream' department fragrances of the last years, I had come to the conclusion it didn't matter the price nor the brand value. They all share something sticky and a little musty, like matte sugar water mixed with honey. Extremely artificial and obtrusive at the same time. Ethyl maltol? Not sure... Maybe a certain type of musk also involved, sugary musk seems to be a big factor in all the modern sweet fragrances (with alibi cameo notes of some flowers and tea or coffee), spoiling them all for me.
I did try one dark chocolate-smelling fragrance, even over a longer period, and it was enough for me to see once and for all that I feel most uncomfortable smelling like a walking cotton candy machine or be associated with it. For me, sweetened amber seems enough for colder seasons if I want something sweet and cosy.
One thing I can say for sure is that, if a company wants to play it safe, it only needs to throw in some vanilla. One can observe - not only here but in general - that fragrances with vanilla can count on higher acceptance/tolerance than those which try without. I, for my part, am not a big fan of dominant vanilla, perhaps that is why it just amuses me to see the above proven every time.