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.
infephesonorp – :
I love this perfume, but I seem to be the only one who notices what to me is the main note: leather. Not a black leather either, but it smells exactly like what it was like to walk into an upscale women’s shoe store in the early 1960’s, when all the shoes were made of good leather. Maybe Italian leather. I’ve had the bottle since right after it came out, and it hasn’t changed much. I still smell the leather. I don’t detect any balsamic notes, at least they don’t smell like balsamic notes post 2010 do. Nor is there much citrus or carnation. I do smell the iris and the lily of the valley. I think I read somewhere they were no longer making this, and I can’t imagine why not. Too much competition, I suppose.
kiver – :
contro ogni aspettativa questo profumo si è rivelato un gioiellino atipico. l’apertura aldeidica si smorza quasi immediatamente su un cuore fruttato (pesca e lime) e floreale (garofano, ylang ylang, rosa) assai fresco e non stucchevole, per poi assestarsi su un bel fondo legnoso. notevole anche la persistenza. costa nulla. buono!
AdarnedShen – :
This has become one of my new favorites. It may well end up as my signature, which I’m still searching for. I’ll admit when I first sniffed my sample bottle I was turned off, it seemed very strong and too woodsy for my taste. But the scent stuck in my nose and I had to go back and sniff again. It seemed to change each time I sniffed! I finally put some on and was amazed at how it has reacted with my chemistry. It never smells quite the same as the day goes on – but each scent is delightful. I find it earthy, sexy, mysterious and floral without being overly sweet. Sillage is excellent, a few little dabs will do if you’re in an office, a few more if out on the town. The scent literally lasted all day. I still smelled some on me when I went to bed. Give this perfume a chance, you may just love it!
Kondepol – :
This fragrance might seem a bit of an oddball. It stands yards apart from the gooey, syrupy gourmands and fruity florals of its year (1999.) It also keeps its distance from the tradition of Beautiful Florals. It is neither expansive, nor powdery, nor sweet, nor symphonic, nor, well, particularly floral. Even aldehydes, so often used in floral fragrances to ramp up from the descriptive to the superlative, just give I dl F a lacquer.
To stand apart and to be eccentric are two different sensibilities, and I dl F captures this precisely. (Mugler’s Angel is eccentric; unhinged, actually. I dl F may be misunderstood but doesn’t care in the least. Compare even the bottles. Impractical [“But I’m artistic, dammit!”] star from Mugler; sqat, clean, unadorned inkwell from I dl F.) There is nothing clamorous about this scent; she’s not trying to win you over. Apparently a completely different train of thought than that of 90s perfumery lead to its creation. Combining white florals (I get tuberose, ylang, jasmine) with a little peach skin, and a rather medicinal benzoin gives a comfortable, rounded feel.
This would be a brilliant signature scent.
Xeroxktzmb – :
Very lovely! I am not generally a fruity floral lover; they are often too sweet for me. However, this fragrance is a bit more serious than one usually finds in the genre.
A few wisps of aldehydes open the fragrance, but they blow away quickly, to be replaced by a deliciously fresh fruity note. It isn’t fruit-salad – it’s a very tangy peach or nectarine, with a hit of sour berries and citrus. As the fruits begin to lift, the lovely, fresh florals come up, and together they smell wonderful. The heart-into-drydown stage is also lovely, with cool fresh florals melting into woody notes.
The bottle is both pretty and substantial, and I was surprised at the low price. It’s cheap, but doesn’t smell like it is.
vanua9005 – :
I confess that I expected something very classic,powdery and intoxicating.at least that’s what the bottle tells about this fragrance.in return I discovered something fruity and sour.I really think I smell something like plum here.it’s not sweet at all.to me it smells a bit like “intuition” by estee lauder,but this one is much better.I don’t get any floral scent,it’s just like plum and that’s all.but it’s nice,much better than what I thought.
after all,I didn’t know the nose behind it is Calice Becker,who is one of my favorites.if I knew that,I would go test it sooner than this.
asdewq – :
I don’t see blackberry listed but that’s the primary fragrance I detect after an hour. Initially a fairly typical fluity floral, it settles down to one of the better berry scents without being too sweet. I like it mixed with Fresh Lemon Sugar.