To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
dima2008 – :
This fragrance is all what the reviewers say in common period. I have a sample, and at a whim in the early evening, I put a small drop on. Whew, I mean, this is everything together what the gang says, but not up my alley, or neighborhood at all. To me, it’s like meeting that celebrity after many years, and you can smell his fragrance, and as you are surrounded by his essence, you can clearly detect his aroma, but you just can’t grab it, and as your brief encounter ends, you finally come down from the cloud and put quill to paper and write the conversation down, how you felt, what he said, blah, blah blah, but you never can re-capture that essence of him. It just reminds me of somebody else’s fragrance, and I don’t think I’ll ever try it again. Chanel and I are sometimes on the same page, even same line, but when we’re on other pages, sometimes that feeling is like, maybe I want to be in another book altogether. Does that make sense. Sorta in a nutshell, it’s nice, but not me and it’s that fragrance that one of your good friends wore, and you couldn’t wait for it to dissipate. Not offensive, but not Thor walking right towards you either. But give it a try before you buy. But do try it, quite possibly could be your next ride for awhile.
westernicka – :
I have to admit that Chanel perfumes all smell the same to me. This particular one is nice. It’s a brighter, fresher, floral take on the standard Chanel scent.
It’s not my style, but I can see other people enjoying it a lot.
groverman – :
Alright, I’ll be the first one to say it here, but the EDP version of 1932 smells like Chanel’s take on J’adore. I have the Les Exclusifs EDP coffret and after multiple wearings it just hit me. 1932 EDP is a soft, white floral and pear perfume dressed in the usual Chanel accompaniments of aldehydes, soft waxy musks and iris. It walks that same strange set of lines that J’adore does of fresh but warm, and dewy sweet but paradoxically almost powdered.
People who don’t generally appreciate aldehydes may find that this interpretation doesn’t offend. The material is definitely present but used judiciously and in a manner that adds sparkle rather than the icepick-up-the-nose sensation one sometimes gets from No5 or No22.
Overall 1932 EDP is easy to wear, very pretty and inoffensive. It would make a stellar signature scent for ladies of any age who want to smell clean but not necessarily of perfume. If you told someone this scent was coming from your hair products, you’d be believed. I like it but I don’t love it.
rhinnyerrorse – :
As a Chanel brand fan, their perfumes form part of my
wardrobe and I feel naked without them! 1932 EDP is a gorgeous vanilla based fruity floral very modern and not at all what I was expecting with a 1932 year association. This doesn’t smell of 1932. So now. 2017. Or last year 2016. Or 2016. You get the picture. Quite modern and wearable for younger women. It’s a soft boudoir scent, cosmetic, powdery, like having come out of an upscale beauty salon. You know. Your hair is made up in a gorgeous perm, you look great, smell great. You have lipstick on, your fingernails are painted and well manicured as are your feet. A pampered ‘kept woman’ kind of a smell.
Opens with fresh aldehydes very fresh and bubbly the kind of nice classic aldehydes from Chanel as in No. 5 and No. 22. It has citrus juice courtesy of a grapefruit that stands out with a juicy pear. Smells almost tropical. The opening is very modern and easy to like. Nothing offensive about it. Delicious fruit notes. As it settles down on the skin, the florals come through. I catch whiffs of green and white florals as in green notes or green leaves around jasmine, like jasmine bushes, but overall I detect an iris scent, a distinct powdery iris. The iris is a bit overdone and this might be the cause of the lipstick and nail polish type of aroma. Not that I dislike those scents. This is not a heavy floral but it’s still coming on strong with iris.
In the dry down the woodsy notes develop and they are like soft wooden bases in cups, made of cedar and sandalwood, with an aromatic vetiver not like grass far more polished. The dry down is evocative of a great smelling furniture polish. In this sense it reminds me of Guerlain’s Shalimar Parfum Initial. In fact this has similar notes as it starts off with citrus fruit segues into florals namely iris and dries into wood. A simple even linear composition but very elegant and romantic. I’m getting a flexible day and night formal and business wear vibe. Smells great with a suit or pant suit or suit and skirt. She is mature and confident, womanly and worldly.
1932 does not smell like a vintage perfume from ’32 nor does it even try to go there. However it does try to smell like a 1950’s boudoir perfume composed of sweet fruit and powdery florals, quite stylish and girly without being cute or saccharine. She is a very well-dressed and mature young woman who likes to wear softer less muskier less green and more powdery floral Chanel scents. This doesn’t belong in the wardrobe of Coco herself. This is for a young client of hers. I do like this perfume especially now that the weather is getting warmer and we approach summer. Makes a fine summer scent refreshing fruity floral with a feminine and soothing powder.
qgx391InsuffBooni – :
This is such an easy Fragrance to wear and has most of the notes I love. The opening of Fruits is so fresh .. when It dries down I still smell a hint of fruits but it warms up and I can smell the creaminess of the vanilla. Sparkly, comforting and warm at the same time.
ArtemXXX – :
Makyaj I bet that lipstick smell is the synthetic compound I mentioned that I believe is also in Dior Homme Intense. If you read the reviews on DHI, a lot of people say it smells like a bag of makeup, or lipstick. To me it’s not a bad smell.
aansoseeij – :
I don’t know what is wrong with my nose but everytime when i use Chanel 1932, it smells like a lipstick. There is a powder and some floral notes but also lipstick is there so clearly.
greensmile – :
I tried this at a department store with several of the other Chanel Les Exclusifs line. This was my favorite, so I got a sample of it. When I tried it on later, it was more floral than I remembered. The jasmine is nice but the lingering generic “floral notes” listed remind me of my grandma.
A few other notes listed share some in common with Dior Homme Intense, which I love. I suspect the pear/ambrette note in both comes from the synthetic molecule Helvetolide. To compare the two, 1932 is a lot lighter than Dior Homme Intense and the white florals are stronger than the iris, making it quite a bit more feminine.
Overall, I like it but with the strong florals, I’m not sure it could be considered unisex.
vovk-45 – :
Fragrance Review For 1932
Chanel
Top Notes
Pear Grapefruit Aldehydes
Middle Notes
Jasmine Iris Floral Notes
Base Notes
Vetiver Musk Woods Incense Vanilla
Formulated by Jacques Polge, this is a fantasy of the glamour of 1932 for me. It has a sweet and fruity scent, far more fruity than any Chanel fragrance past or present. In fact upon that first whiff I was not sure it was a Chanel. There is so much pear grapefruit with a tangy, and edible fruit scent that it can pass for something other than a Chanel. As delicious as these fruit notes, they are at variance with most Chanel perfumes. The aldehyde content, however, brings it back to that Chanel realm. The aldehydes are effervescent and fresh, like bubbles and froth. This smells like a young Dolores del Rio out on the town, her perfume fruity floral, and inviting with her wardrobe of satin and her warm smile. This is also something for Fay Wray. It has a feminine but not mature air.
The florals are nondescript white florals, a distinct Grasse jasmine, and an iris. The iris would have been powdery but it smells light and a bit inky. There is more jasmine than anything else in it. I love the jasmine in this scent. It’s clean and brilliant. The florals are preludes to the later scent of vanilla with chypre tones. I smelled vetiver, green notes and musk, along with woods. This is a very subdued chypre but it is still enjoyable as a woodsy perfume. The vanilla, Polge’s favorite base note, keeps everything together. It’s so elegant and Chanelesque when you pick up on the base notes. Elegant, conservative and womanly. This matches up with semi formal and formal wear for day wear. The incense note that is supposed to be in it is never reaching my nose although the dry down and last part is warm. The glamour of this perfume is appropriate for evening wear.
Not much else to say. This is a gorgeous scent and one of the most adorable fruity Chanel scents out there. I highly recommend it for both experienced perfumistas who like Chanel frags and or as an intro to Chanel. If you like Chance or Misia, you might also enjoy this one. For me the dominant accords are the fruit. Never before did I imagine that the pear and grapefruit would be this good and this prominent in a Chanel perfume. So sweet! Love it.
mikler – :
Tested both new EdP 2016 & earlier EdT purchased in 2013. I much prefer the earlier EdT which has no grapefruit/pear note. The EdT shows more orris root/jasmine with sheer incense notes. As noted, they really seem like two different fragrances.
vlad0000000000 – :
I have both EdT and EdP. They are like 2 different scents.
EdT goes towards orrisroot-aldehyde- flowers and EdP goes towards flowerfruitywoody notes.
In the EdP the opening with Pear and Grape is dominant for about 20 minutes, then the flower-woodsy notes gets dominant. A lovely scent, but if you are familiar to EdT notice this one is totally different – and they both are wonderful and have great Chanel-spirit.
Jag har både EdT och EdP, De är som 2 olika dofter. EdT är en Orrisrot-aldehyd fräsch doft med blomnoter och EdP är en frukt-blommig doft med dova tränoter i basen. I öppningen är päron/grape dominant men efter en stund dansar blomnoterna runt på en skön träbas. Underbar doft, men om du är van vid EdT’n så är denna helt olik – de är båda superfina men helt olika – de har dock en tydlig o skön Chanel-själ.