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.
 Chloé){kind=link}
Февраль – :
Honestly this perfume reminded me of Charlie Blue and Chanel no. 5. I brought this right back to the store. I’m not a huge fan of alderhydic scents. This was too strong for my sensitive nose.
kosstas – :
I wrote a review earlier – but after wearing this fragrance for a little while, I have to say this is an underrated fragrance.
Others have made a comment that they need to go easy on this perfume as it can be overpowering. I found the opposite with my chemistry. I initially sprayed twice for a few days but felt the scent disappear within two hours. I decided to spray 4 times. I catch a whiff of it every now and then… lasts for more than 6 hours.
Compared to the newer Chloe which is loud and sharp, original Chloe is the sister that is quiet, knows herself and what she likes, evokes warmth and sophistication. If you’re blind buying, I recommend.
KainHell – :
This is lovely. So much better than the (totally different) EDP newer version.
This fragrance is heaven in the warm weather.
ValdyS – :
annxyz, let me add my kudos to the rest. Your review is spot on. I used to wear Chloe when I was young to great acclaim, if I say so myself.
But I guess you can’t teach the mass-market “girly” fruit-punch addicts.
kazak71 – :
annxyz – SO true. I cannot improve on your review. This is lovely, the tuberose is so warm and cozy and sexy in a low key way. Very well blended. I would say this is more of a fall/winter perfume. This one is a classic.
Edit: Cooler weather here and again, I find myself reaching for this classic. The tuberose in this is wonderful, and if you like Givenchy Organza you will like this. I find them in a similar type of style. (I own both).
demon21053 – :
Very, very dated initially but after 20 minutes it settles and there is a beautiful warm luxurious scent. It’s buttery and spicy on my skin.
dok200181 – :
Amen, annxyz, amen. Completely agree with you.
vpnh904 – :
This perfume says “woman “ . It is the ultimate feminine floral . I can not understand why it is not preferred over the new generic and over priced version. This has much more warmth and depth .
Some reviews call it “dated” . How so ? Because it does not smell like berry jam or marmalade ? There are many things that would be considered dated , like a John Constable or Renoir painting . Many of the most striking creations are found in museums and galleries and revered. Do we need to dismiss something because it has been around a while ? Is it to be disregarded because our mother wore it ?
There was a time when women were less inclined to strive to be the sexiest woman in the room . This is a perfume for a woman who has no need to be a vamp . She is comfortable with her own skin and her definition of femininity is not dependent on being like everyone else, nor on being sexually provocative .
I wore this as a young mother ( thirty years ago ) and my husband loved the way it smelled on me . I am a grandma now, and was prepared to purchase the “new “ Chloe while shopping with a good friend. She said to me “ I still think the original Chloe is much prettier “. I agreed with her because it is richer and more distinctive in my opinion.
gi4417 – :
A huge thank you to MoreScentsThanDollars for a great swap which allowed me to join the party – I don’t know where I’ve been in regards to Chloe. It’s a very pleasing fragrance with a white floral base. Sophisticated and stylish, Chloe will be in my meagre collection for the long haul. Delightful!
Arottfeptes – :
Smelled this the other day at Khols. It reminds me of Elizabeth Taylor Diamonds and Emeralds a bit, very orange blossom honeysuckle. A bit old fashioned maybe for some, but I love that sort of fragrance, if I didn’t have such a large bottle of ET Emeralds and half a bottle of Avon Rare Gold perhaps I could justify purchasing a bottle.
GunJully – :
I was gifted this when I turned 16 in 1987.
Oh how much I wish I could once again smell it’s original warm peachy scent… The memories that would come flooding back.
9sejourcapitaln – :
Monster sillage and longevity!
I know this perfume can give you ‘old lady smell’ vibe but to me this is still so pleasant, it wraps you in mother’s love. Total classic! Very flowery but So gentle, so warm. Very rich indeed. I use sparingly when i go out in the evening.
SES.KSV – :
Ive been thinking of replacing my bottle of this that i bought on a whim a few years ago; i was in the chemist just browsing for no reason and happened apon a bottle of Chloe. There were no testers but I gave it a go anyway.
On me it was a beautiful spicy rose with a peppery note that im guessing was the carnation. Lasts AGES, couple of sprays and its there all day.
At the time i was all of about 22 years old, yet i loved the heady spicy vintage aroma. So much so that im tempted to buy a replacement bottle just thinking about it.
Its not something you’ll find being made in this modern day trend of light fruity florals.
nemykin-2011 – :
This was my 1st fine fragrance. It was my signature fragrance for years. I wore this on my wedding day and wear it every year on my anniversary. A beautiful intense floral that lasts for hours. My youngest daughter has made Chloe her signature fragrance now .
Update! I am over the moon! I was unpacking perfumes that I had boxed up from my days of working in the fragrance and cosmetics industry in the late 70’s and 80’s and I found my vintage Chloe perfume in the Lalique crystal bottle and it still smells divine! It’s so much softer than the new formula.
Hoi1999 – :
This smells like something a pretty but plain bookish lady might wear.. a librarian or an algebra teacher, a long haired brunette in a cardigan and glasses. A woman that is quiet and soft spoken but knows who she is.
Dusty, slightly spicy florals.. dusty like an antique store with that spicy scent of old wood furniture and old books and old clothes with a tiny bit of Chanel No 5 still clinging to them.
I dig it!
СПД Багрий Александр – :
I got a vintage Chloe, 50ml, like the above bottle but def a Lagerfeld box. At first I thought it was musty/soapy and powdery and I liked it fine… but you must try on skin!
On skin I get SWEET buttery tuberose and coconut. Damn, it really really smells like melted butter- lol! Sadly I don’t get much moss (got more moss/greens on fabric from my first test) just very potent full tuberose/coconut in a very very nice sweet way. Opens with aldehydes too. I find it quite sweet, and reminds me of Chloe Narcisse in that way.
I wanted to get woody mossy musk but it never came. I will say, it stayed POTENT on my shirt, but the skin application which developed/changed more, disappeared rather quickly- which is probably why I didn’t smell the base. Despite this being a vintage bottle, I found the skin lasting power to be disappointing. However, I was heavy handed and the shirt sillage was HUGE, but did stay linear in the middle notes. I put a squirt of Silences on my skin later that night thinking it would boost the moss/green drydown of Chloe, but it was AWFUL (lol) and the potent Chloe from my shirt took over easily in 5 minutes.
I went to ebay to check out how cheap a small bottle of the current formula cost… and… well… I found another vintage and bought it. Haha. The 3.0, 90% full FROSTED bottle this time. YAY! $20!
I do like this. I don’t find it dated or OL, it does have some vintage charm- but that is why I LOVE vintage scents.
Aiforiy3235 – :
The quintessential “grandma” fragrance
Lagerfeld’s Chloe smells of freshly washed linen drying in the sun, lilac blossoms and creamy, honeyed white flowers resting on a classic chypre base of bittersweet dry moss. A delicate beauty that evokes effortless refined elegance and warm maternal hugs. So pretty!
engelidek1977 – :
Balmy (as in, tiare oil heavy and balmy), bitter and mossy, honeyed white florals with a golden warmth, high pitched but soft: Sort of like a Pianissimo version of a high pitched hum.
Very vintage smelling, as in, vintage like a liquor, like the tuberose and honeysuckle has been macerating in scotch for a decade. Languid and ripe, yet retro shampoo clean at the same time.
“Chloe” has that hazy, slightly louche French sexiness, it reminds me of a clean, heated body, dusted with oakmoss powder but getting humid in the sunshine. Clean but fleshy and not for those who don’t like the classic astringent and balsamic, resiny-woody and slightly over-ripe quality of many classic French perfumes (think “Bal à Versailles”.)
But if that’s your fragrance game, you’d be hard pressed to find a better specimen of that style than classic “Chloe”.
Panin – :
Enjoying this, my mother’s favorite, now that the weather is FINALLY warming up and feeling more like spring. A nice daytime fragrance, good for work if used sparingly.
The aldehydes in the beginning provide a sparkly-soapy clean, invigorating start, then I get hints of peach and coconut. The flowers arrive, but are over-arched by a creamy tuberose that dominates for the majority of the fragrance. It ends with a musky soft sweet tuberose with a faded sparkle of aldehydes.
It definitely has a classic vibe that I enjoy, but it doesn’t feel dated at all. The modern EDT I have is pretty strong for the first few hours, but softens down nicely after that. Perfectly serviceable, no complaints here.
Vomiamnit – :
Tuberose, peaches, and aldehydes with hints of coconut!
The coconut swings between the notes freely as i can detect it with allot of roses, narcissus, jasmines, carnation, oakmoss, sandalwood, ylang, and orange blossoms. I can detect lilac, musk, hiacynth, cedar, and orris.
This is a blend of floral sweet with coconut, and woods. I’ve see this in a local antique vintage shop and it ran out of stock quite fast, and now i just understood why it want out that easy and fast. Impressive
jyosvfdsoft – :
The new formula bears no resemblance to the one I used to wear in the 1970s. Back then there was no artificial feel to it whatsoever. I would dab two drops behind my ears and it made me feel like a star. I bought the reformulation for the sake of having the bottle, but the scent itself is hideous.
Mertylogg – :
I found this one at CVS. The bottle looked like the “old formula”. I worked with a girl who wore this back in the 90s. The scent I experienced was nothing like I remembered. It was a bitter-type aldehyde that did not evolve into anything more appealing. Darn. I will be donating this one to the next neighbor yard sale.
Igradswe – :
Chloe Chloe also known as the original (I’ve been told).
Top not s I don’t mind, this isn’t my fav fragrance genre.
White floral
Powdery
Soapy
Yeah there’s the aldehydes (which I dislike)
It’s not horrible, for context I dislike lots of fragrances that others love when it comes to florals and aldehydes.
I might layer this to make it mine if ever I was gifted a bottle. I think it’s worth trying from a price point standing.
farmacevt55 – :
I finally got a tiny miniature and it was love at first sniff. This is so delicious, ah, that tuberose, very sweet but not cloying, fresh, because there is not vanilla. So creamy and yummy. To my nose there is everything in balance, nothing too much, even coconut, which can be sometimes too strong and dominant. But it’s there, and I love it.
Sometimes when I need something sweet, This is a very good choice.
serjey_45 – :
Chloe reminds me of a fresher less starchy version of White Linen edp. Sadly, Chloe is everything I wished White Linen would of been. Chloe has a bubble gum Tuberose kind of sweetness too it, some may call this old lady or even out dated, Yet, I find Chloe too be quite the opposite I love Chloe and have worn this since the 1970s on and off. Longevity is pretty good sillage is pretty good. What a joy too wear and I get compliments daily. It doesn’t get any better than this.
Bourdedlege – :
I really, really, really like this! This has the potential to become love. I have a thing for vintage or old school fragrances that standout from the infinite sea of sweeties lining modern shelves. However, they can’t be “too old school.” I’m picky. Some 70’s and 80’s fragrances are favorites for me but I struggle with finding a place to wear them so I just don’t! lol My Poison and Paloma Picasso are like that. They collect dust because it’s hard to wear them in the modern world despite their beauty. I want that standout vintage smell without feeling completely out of place wearing it today. Chloe fits the bill perfectly. It’s timeless, though it hints gently at times gone by, and it just works!
The Aldehyde & Tuberose combo lend a “classy classic” feel to the fragrance. It is creamy. It’s clean. It’s not soft but it doesn’t scream either. It has a certain balance that I really appreciate. Some reviewers say peach is prominent, but I don’t get the peach and I’m glad. I don’t typically love heavy peach. I will edit with any revelations after a few more wears but it’s fantastic so far! I would say this is one of the better “starter classics” for people just beginning to explore vintage fragrances!
lolo007 – :
Very scratchy , overbearing , pungent , nothing like its flankers which are much more sweeter , creamier and beautiful !
messir-alex – :
Another hidden gem from the 1970s, the original Chloe is an old-school floral chypre with a tomboyish vibe. It has a sort of aftershave drydown, probably the oakmoss. Up front the tuberose and peach are round, smooth, glowing, and succulent, and in the background there are green stems and leaves, wet after a rain. The tuberose isn’t scrubbed clean, it’s still a little dirty and carnal. I think if a guy wanted to wear something floral, he could pull Chloe off. I noticed that the perfumer, Betty Busse, also signed Estee Lauder Estee in 1968, and the notes are very similar. I’ve never smelled Estee, so I can’t compare. There is something naturalistic and earthy about some perfumes from that era, which Chloe personifies very well.
олег – :
It breaks my heart that this perfume has so many dislikes!
For me, this is the senorita version of Chanel no 5, how someone else said in a comment smells like luxurious french soap, I usually dislike heady pure florals like Organza, Anais Anais or 5th Avenue, but this is not that, it has something so alluring, sexy but aristocratic. it remembers you what it means to be a woman and why you should be proud to be. Deep, it’s like the person who wears it has something, a secret or a way of seeing things you will never understand, but you cant stop trying and falling for her. The vintage vibe is subtle, just enough to make you get into the trap of melancholy of golden times/dolce vita period.
I might be just lucky with the chemistry, but this perfume helps me feel like I’m living my life, and I do it in the most beautiful way. Its pure glow and sensuality, a perfume for a nymph!
seregey_bull – :
I had it when I was young, I love this perfume so very much, so, I bought a new bottle now, and it smells so fantastic, it makes me feel so happy!
ZVERUGA – :
I received it in Karl’s version, the frosted bottle, and it smells so powdery and innocent, exactly as I remember it from early 90’s. From the box and packaging I can say this bottle is also from early 90’s…..
This perfume is inexplicable and un-copy-abl, it is an Egyptian pyramid, it is a Sophia Loren, you will not see/smell something like it. But it has to be Karl Lagarfeld’s version, not Coty’s (Parfums Chloe). I tried both, and the old formula is way much nicer, and powderier. Love it, and stocked some extra.
NoHow – :
How I loved this back in the 1980s. I also had dusting powder, which was gorgeous!!!!
Pekos432 – :
Wearing this perfume today after washing off a disaster vintage Vivara which left me with burning rubber in my nostrils. Chloe is a perfume I remember from the late 80’s but it didn’t appeal to me then. I wore Miss Dior original, Rochas Femme, Magie Noir, Opium, Cinnabar and Jolie Madame in my 20’s so Chloe seemed a bit lacking in sophistication for me.
However I’m visiting vintage fragrances now I have the inclination to indulge. This one is a new version of the vintage, in the same bottle and packaging as shown at the top of the page. After wearing Chloe for a few hours now, I am enjoying the perfume. The aldehydes are clear as well as the florals and tuberose. I’m quite a tuberose aficionado these days and this one isn’t tuberose heavy enough for me to want to buy another bottle in a hurry. But I will wear and enjoy it. The longevity isn’t great though so I’ve reapplied.
myn271Unlogrere – :
Wow! This stuff is powerful. I am recently craving Tuberose, and lovely members here have suggested Chloe and Amarige, so I tried both. I like them both a lot. Amarige is bright and uplifting. This one is soapy and knocked me out in a good way.
Nothing I have smelt before….just this loud soapy opening, then turning dusky floral.
Its addictive to me.
I have yet to decide which one to get, but I think right now, its both.
viktorvys – :
I first had this is the mid to late 80’s while attending college. I wore this and Anais Anais a lot. They were my intro to the big powerhouses of silage. Decades have passed, and I moved on from these to other styles.
However, I kept seeing this at TJMAXX, but always passed on it for years because I heard the reformulation was crap. Finally about 4 months ago, I saw a gift set with a damaged box for $14.99 for a large bottle and a giant lotion…what the hell, I’m going for it.
To be honest, it’s just the way I remembered it. It doesn’t smell different, and it’s still quite strong. 2 sprays-7 hours, I retroactively say sorry to all my friends back in the 80’s because I know I did much more than 2 sprays back in the day. I’m really loving this again, I wish I can hug my 18 year old self and say it all worked out and thanks for the memories.
alexar01 – :
Some might relate to this: the relationship I have with Chloe (this one- not the new stuff) is similar to a relationship one might have with a troublesome lover. Wearing it is like having a passionate torrid affair with someone who you know is all wrong for you, yet they keep drawing you in.
Chloe is a very lovely scent- certainly one of the all time greats- but it’s so intense and animalic! Generally I gravitate towards fresh clean and fun fragrances; picks that are pleasant and easy to wear. Chloe is… sort of naughty. To be sure, it qualifies as a romantic scent. But it’s the part of romance that happens after dinner at the fancy restaurant and the long evening stroll by the water. It’s what happens when you get back to the hotel after all that. It smells like love, affection, a box of Valentine’s Day chocolates, wet bedsheets and lingerie strewn over the chair. Yes, it’s “love”, but love in real-time; warts and all.
Listen. I love it. But it’s so hard to wear outside of the house!
Tielmeree – :
Today’s Chloe (the one in the square bottle) I find to be just wretched. It doesn’t hold a candle to this original Chloe, which I first smelled in 1982. This was my teenaged aunt’s favorite perfume. One year I decided to buy her a bottle for Christmas only to keep it for myself instead! I recently bought a vintage mini parfum and it is exactly as I remember it. I wore it today and it was just surprisingly modern to me, still relevant. This is tuberose with enough warmth and fruity complexity that it can be worn anytime, day or night. I highly recommend the vintage minis.
Deroxnhrxl – :
spicy, tuberose, mossy floral; very rich and deep; not a chypre but not a white floral; lovely
seslus – :
My mother used to wear this back in the day and had a bottle of the original formula until a few months ago, I believe. Yes (as with Opium and many other fragrances) this has been simplified and somewhat cut down. BUT it’s still a very very nice fragrance that sets itself apart from the flood of sameish sweet fragrances. I tested it two days ago – one spritz on the back of my hand. The opening is a little harsh but as we know by now – I ignored that and continued with my business. About 30 minutes later a beautiful aroma reached my nose and sticked with me throughout the evening (even after doing the dishes). Peachy, creamy florals with the tuberose and carnation being rather prominent on me. Not dated but definitely different and “perfumey”, this – amongst others of course – is the smell of a woman. I want a bottle!
denteedia – :
its a shame they discontinued the old formula……….it was a beautiful strong creamy floral scent…………i just loved it……….the re-created version im sad to say just doesnt cut it……..smells to chemical for me – it lacks the creaminess………and where the heck are the aldehydes lol – not in the re-created version……and the beautiful honeysuckle & tuberose in the original just doesnt shine in the re-created version……….i think its time for this one to be put to sleep lol…………but i do love the “new” chloe (in the square bottle ) & the whole “new” chloe line – which is nothing like this recreated version – so dont get them confused 🙂
dthtofuf83 – :
Amazingly enough, I spotted this beauty at an antique collective this afternoon!! I was very excited to find a fairly full bottle. It is the original and smells so lush with the slight siren call of the tuberose, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as Fracas. Here it is an hour later and it has mellowed out a bit, to a more green/lush blend with the floral. I am very happy that it appeared to me out of the blue, as it did.
LeshiyHaus – :
Recently bought a vintage, Lagerfeld version, from eBay. Mostly for sentimental purposes, as it was one of the fragrances my mother would wear (and I frequently stole from her medicine cabinet for a spritz) when I was a child.
This has all the elements I remember. On me, the peach is creamy and prominent and I blame this perfume for my peach obsession of today. Of course, it may also have something to do with my love of tuberose. We start early, right? There’s something so satisfying about the round fruit-shaped frosted bottle with its silver cap.
I don’t adore it as much as I used to – these days I prefer fewer aldehydes, something less big, less ’80s-feeling – but I still reach for it when I’m feeling nostalgic. It’s like the comfort food of fragrances for me.
Xeroxnsqej – :
An early memory of mine being very little-4or5-is this bottle standing on its box on my mother’s boudoir. My mother was never a perfume person. She always had one or two fragrances. This is the only one i can recall almost as a dream.
Now this is a so peculiar perfume…in a good way. It stands out of the bunch and is a love or hate perfume. So…i love it. It opens with the most medicinal aldehydes followed straight away with the tuberose. The tuberose stays there while the aldehydes dissipate introducing the peach which is creamy. Don’t forget about the moss. Is here in the backstage keeping all the notes interesting and saving them by become dull and another 70-80s perfume. This is the most spectacular of this frag. The oakmoss keeps all together and don’t let them become sugary sweet. The drydown is very smooth because the sandalwood enters the game and stays that way till the end
Longevity is superb-8to10h
Sillage on my dry skin radiates within arms length
rifmoprotcessor – :
A little goes a long was, as do most vintages, esp from that era.
It is elegant, and sophisticated. Much like I wanted to be when i wore it in the 70’s..to be honest I think it was too grown up for me at that time…but I loved it then and wore it just the same.
I wear it now mostly for nostalgic reasons. Brings back great memories. But aside from that, it is a fantastic fragrance. And the added bonus is you won’t smell like a variation of everyone else…you will be different.
I cant stand smelling like candy floss, or like every other person. I clearly remember the time when CK one was launched, and EVERYbody, men and women, were wearing the same thing. Went to the movies, and the whole theatre was CK one!
Seriously?
It’s more of a winter, special occasion scent, I would not recommend it for the office.
If there has been a reformulation, I cannot tell, at least not from my memory of 40 years ago.The version now available is fine enough for me.
If youu want a distinctive, sultry, creamy scent, give this a try.
val50576199 – :
A little goes a long was, as do most vintages, esp from that era.
It is elegant, and sophisticated. Much like I wanted to be when i wore it..to be honest i think it was too grown up for me at that time…but i loved it then. As i do now.
Is moore of a winter, special occasion scent.
If there has been a reformulation, i cannot tell, or at least the version now available is fine for me.
vovanmas – :
Your prodigal daughter has returned mother Chloe..two years ago I left you convinced I needed to find myself something new after all the years we had been together. From my very first miniature when I was about 10 to all the bottles I’ve repurchased without a second thought. I’m back dear lady. This time I treated myself to the vintage by Karl Lagerfeld. It’s so nice. It’s not dripping and oozing sweet sugar..it’s just a light breezy version of today’s incarnation. I like both to be honest but the vintage is more crowd friendly.
Ksu92 – :
I wore this when it was first introduced in 1975..I loved it then and it is still one of my favorites..The parfum is the best way to experience it, and a little dab is enough..It brings such wonderful memories, just as classic scents are supposed to do.. I hope never to be without it…
yusif1987 – :
Wow. This perfume is amazing.
I was shopping at Marshall’s with my mother this afternoon when she stopped to look at a box set of perfume and lotion. She looked at it and said, “You know, I wore this for years right after I met your dad. Think he will still recognize the scent?” Mind you, my parents have been married for over 30 years. So we buy the (very reasonably priced) box set and head home for a Father’s Day celebration. She dabs on a bit of the lotion on our way.
After getting home she has my dad smell her wrists. “Hey! I know this!” He says. My mom’s eyes light up. He remembered this after so many years.
On my way home from dinner I stopped back by Marshall’s to pick up a set for myself. I didn’t really pay attention to what the fragrance smelled like, but I wanted it just knowing it was special to my mom. I sprayed a bit on and started my drive home.
MY GOOD LORD. This stuff is great! Slightly suffocating when you first spray it on (it’s harsh, y’all) but give it 15 minutes and you’re surrounded in a halo of creamy, clean goodness. It’s so hard to describe.. it’s not too sweet, not too in-your-face and CERTAINLY not too old fashioned. I’m 25, for the record.
What a funny little afternoon. Can’t wait to explore this fragrance more.
zeroshadow – :
There is a subtle mystery about this fragrance.
dadinov – :
beautiful, but nothing unique. I feel like I have smelled some forms of it through other perfumes that I have smelled. I can say that it is a classic though.
maximusx – :
I have the Chloe, Parfums Chloe version. Never smelled the Lagerfield version, unfortunately, so I cannot comment on that version. Not the Chloe New, either.
The Chloe I have is still wonderful. Completely different than anything being released lately. It is a heady, sensuous floral but the addition of the aldehydes keeps it from being syrupy and heavy. It is so beautiful. Warm but totally appropriate for summer wear. I was actually hoping it would be more powerful and have stronger sillage and projection.
This is immediately going into my Top 5 favorites.
UPDATE: Wow, what a beautiful scent. Dried down to a lovely, slightly soapy (think Ivory) floral. This really is perfect for summer. It may be a faux pas to mention this, but I’m getting a slight EL White Linen vibe (which I almost got, instead of the Chloe). I can also smell traces of what inspired Chloe Narcisse, which is a favorite of mine. This is NOT overpowering or a sillage monster. Now, I’m going to have to track down some vintage. If this is what the reformulation smells like, I might die of happiness if I get vintage.
domino1977 – :
My mother’s signature scent…but the perfume was a bit too much for her…She wore the cream from a jar…after a shower she would just add a dab to her skin and it became part of HER…Rich, luxurious, powdery …she smelled chic. Over the years I have learned that some heavy hitter perfumes need to be away from the face to be enjoyed and sometimes just the creams and lotions are enough to make you perfectly perfumed.
Djuk57 – :
This is another one I love, as it’s another one of the few vintage perfumes that seem to suit my body chemistry.
It doesn’t seem to be too sweet, or overpowering (if used in small doses) on me.
It’s just sweet enough and a little spicy.
Almost edible, especially once the flowers fade a little – but, definitely not in that sickly, artificial candy type way many contemporary perfumes have.
It’s very far from that.
It’s more like a spiced fruit dessert.
Almost Christmasy, even.
I also happen to really like the Chloe fashion house; so, it’s kind of like it was meant to be.
When I was a little girl, my mum didn’t like Chloe very much.
Whereas vintage perfumes tend to go sour on me, they tended to go overly sweet on her.
So, it’s totally understandable that she would have considered Chloe a no-no for her.
She said she didn’t like musk very much and it is fairly musky, I guess?
Also, she had more of a stylish, but slightly androgynous vibe, which didn’t really gel with the whole “Chloe girl” look.
Whereas, as a little girl, I was really into feminine stuff.
I remember standing in Boots with her and being very drawn to the beautiful, calla lily bottles and the sweet, heady smell.
I even liked the soft shape of the letters, saying “Chloe” and the accent over the e.
I remember I pointed over at the Chloe counter and said “What about Chloe?”.
She said “Chloe?! No.”, very firmly and scoffed slightly, at the very idea. xD
I’m sure I saw the Chloe sales assistant, who was looking over at us, smile at me somewhat sympathetically, lol.
Looking back, it was quite funny.
Anyway, gorgeous, slightly sultry, feminine fragrance, as long as it suits your body chemistry.
I haven’t tried the new version, by the way – I’m mainly referring to old vintage bottles of the pure parfum, in the little glass-stoppered bottles.
Those bottles are so beautiful.
Wish there were still bottles (and perfumes) like that, now.
Imagine a little bottle like this, with a frosted, graduated, light dusty pink orchid stopper, for example.
But, I digress…
Xupo – :
Since my first review, I’ve added a small bottle of the vintage pure parfum to my collection. It’s a beautiful heavy floral perfume. Tuberose is the top note, and it’s very rich and heady. I don’t get the sharpness of the EDT in the pure parfum. And with it being a splash/dab on bottle, it’s easy to apply with a light hand so as not to be radiating a sillage cloud that can fill a room.
Dimarde – :
This voluptuous perfume foreshadows the 80’s powerhouse perfume trend even it was created in 1975. It opens with bright aldehydic peach and floral galore. Then it is dominated by the sweet intoxicating tuberose. A touch of coconut gives an opaque-ish finish. The amber, sandalwood and benzoin drydown is sumptuous despite it is in the vintage EDT concentrate.
Elena Vosnaki from Perfume Shrine described it as “a white floral centered on tuberose, flower of spiritual ruin, carnal, feminine and feisty.”
Attisuani – :
I’m amazed. I first tried this in winter, because my mom used to wear it, and it was a headache inducing nightmare. I just wore it again, last night, on a warm night in March, and either my hormones have changed or my nose has changed bc this is intoxicating. If this is Tuberose I need to cancel my Bandit lust and get Fracas immediately. Or both. Because this is very warm, sweet, and sexy. I can’t believe I wrote it off as a h