Description
Chanel is launching yet another fragrance from the prestigious collection Les Exclusifs de Chanel. Chanel 1932 fragrance is accessible to wider public since early 2013. The inspiration for this creation lies in the first collection of fine jewelry of this house that was presented in 1932.
The composition is powdery – floral with a focus on jasmine. It opens with fresh citrusy flavors that include aldehydes, bergamot and neroli. The heart is a heady floral, composed of jasmine, rose, ylang-ylang, lilac and carnation. The base is sweet, woody and resinous with notes of vetiver, orris, sandalwood, opoponax, incense, vanilla, coumarin, ambrette, musk and iralia molecule which possesses the character of iris and violet.
Les Exclusifs de Chanel 1932 is available as 75 ml and 200 ml Eau de Toilette.
The nose behind this fragrance is Jacques Polge.
Hazard_8808 – :
It smells nice but this should have been a Chanel mainstream release but not part of the Exclusifs line. 1932 tries to appeal too much to very broad audience, again it’s nice but it’s not distinctive enough to justify that sort of price point. For $350 plus tax, I expect something truly special not something that smells pretty.
If this was a Chanel mainstream I’d give it 4.5/5 but sold as an expensive exclusive it drops to 2.5/5.
Think Tinsley from the RHONY, a rich trust fund stupid ditz who’s never worked a day in her life!
apofis66690 – :
Being a novice in Chanel’s Les Exclusifs line I tried 1932 for a full day, but a week later with a sample paper in my pocket I’m still not sure what to make of it. Do I love it? Or do I just find it very interesting?
Obviously there are some hardcore fans of this line here, pushing all fragrances into high scores. Now that’s ok, we all have our preferences. And I agree that this one quite special. I kept as I said the (generously sprayed) tester for a few days and sniffed it repeatedly until I finally had an image of the right woman wearing it in my mind: An intelligent, elegant and mature lady type Christine Lagarde; impeccable style, agile intellect and a high interest in classical music & arts. Maybe I should start my journey to the future me with this outstanding perfume. It’s a long road ahead, but I hear that 1932 comes in big bottles…
dom183 – :
I really like it along with my favorite Misia and Beige and I like 18 and I am sure there are more
but
BUT that dry down 🙁 very oldish strong cheap perfume
someone else ?
iev234Negeltzex – :
Utterly, devastatingly fabulous. This is like a modern day Chanel classic. Chance? Allure? Sure… if you go for those kinds of scents. Scents that seem to embody something other than Chanel. 1932 takes some of the basic aspects of their best selling fragrances of the previous century and combine them to make something that just makes sense. Short lived, sort of… I get roughly 5 hours. Up to 8 if I apply once more 30 minutes after first application. I loved this from first sniff and would have purchased it if I didn’t have other things I wanted more. I recieved a 70% full 200mL bottle from 2014 as a gift and … I couldnt be more happy. Floral aldehyde DREAM.
BEERlin – :
1932 is a floral, feminine, light citrus scent. Very pleasant.
koka-gambo – :
at first I too was underwhelmed. it smelled like.. perfume. basic. but then i noticed how it made me FEEL throughout the day. calm. happy. approachable. it is very calming and “kind”. i find myself spritzing this one every day. it blends so beautifully with so many others. it is just extremely pleasant and yes, it does smell “expensive”..luxurious.. yes like a fantastic soap. it lingers throughout the day, I have no problem with longevity. it vaguely stays on my skin even after a hot shower. it is one that becomes part of your every day, but just uplifts. i usually I prefer a challenge. but I cant help but enjoy this one so very much. ues it is office friendly. it is everything friendly.
ik0013 – :
i hung off from purchasing this beauty for ages, because a lot of the reviews had lead me to believe that i wouldn’t like it. an office friendly fruity floral vanilla musk with no longevity.
not that.
and i love it.
for a start, this EDT lasts an entire day on my skin. i have no longevity issues with this or 28 La Pausa or even Bel Respiro.
im not getting this dollop of jasmine that is often spoken of, rather a clean soft whisp of it. i am not getting this powdery musky vanilla either, so often referred to in the dry down.
This is a sparkling perfume that yes, reminds me of 31 rue cambon (a touch) and has a dash of 28 la pausa (the love of my life). but it is a unique scent in its own right.
after the whisp of aldehydes and the fruity jasmine, the 31 rue cambon-likey take-off, in time, the dry down is rather unisex on me. I’m getting some musk mallow, some smokey vetiver, a beautiful orris (actually – orris from the start), oppoponax and incense – when i was expecting sweetish, powdery vanilla musk yawn.
this might be “office safe”, but so are most of the other les exclusifs! even the mamouth Coromandel.
1932 is a complex and stunning EDT that does indeed live up to it’s fine jewellery story. i don’t wear diamonds, but i do wear pearls occasionally. nor am i a 21st Century Chanel woman (quite the opposite in fact).
BUT please try 1932 if you can. it is going for peanuts on eBay and i truly don’t understand why.
evukaz5 – :
icy aldehydes, oakmoss, roses and ylang ylang represent the beginnings for a beautiful chypre.
This is just beautiful – truly like sparkling diamonds. Powdery, clean and elegant.
19bas57 – :
Beautiful! No surprise with Chanel. An even smooth combination of musk/floral. Somehow this scent is both modern and vintage. It smells classy and classic without anyone thinking you smell like your grandmother.
ДМИТРИЙ ЗУБКОВ – :
Oh wow! This is gorgeous! I love the aldehydes, which are only strong in the top notes for me, I wish they lasted longer, because I love the way Chanel does aldehydes. I also detect bergamot and lilac right away. The Ylang ylang is noticeable, but balanced by the other notes, and the jasmine also doesn’t overpower, despite getting lots of votes. (Those are two tricky notes on my skin, but here they are controlled and in balance, so they don’t stick out too much.). My ability to detect individual floral notes (aside from lilac) fades within the first 30 minutes, as the powdery, musky base notes emerge, and everything blends together. It feels a little soapy, very powdery, lightly musky, and feminine. I agree with others that I can detect some similarities, initially, with Chanel No5 Eau Premiere, but lilac is here and the only floral I can detect throughout the dry down, and also 1932 is more powdery on me. The aldehydes also last longer on me in Eau Premiere. For me, the two are different enough that I want to own both.
loeka – :
I tried this one without knowing which Chanel it was(nameless sample)so I didn’t know it’s notes at first.the only notes I could guess were:jasmine,musk,a hint of something fresh and fruity like pear or apple and a soft,sweet,powdery floral bouquet
It opens lovely,very easy to like fresh and soft floral scent.middle phase is very Chanelesque,classy,has a dominant soapy musky Jasmine which is chanel signature, dry down is heavenly,still Chanel signature in a warmer,creamier way
I finally found out that the sweetheart who has mesmerised me was Chanel les exclusifs 1932.I usually look for smallest sizes of perfumes I want to buy but in this case I have to look for it’s 200mil(though I know it would be too expensive for me,it’s also very difficult to find hear,probably I have to order it abroad)
There are a lot of Chanel perfumes I like a lot but this one is my number one favorite up to this point.it’s a pretty,easy to wear powdery-musky-clean floral.something that suits a bride perfectly and however it’s very springy,I’d gladly wear it year along mostly as a day perfume,a very lady like,gorgeous and elegant one
Yes There’s definitely aldehydes here but not intense,headache inducing aldehydes.yes there’s musk in it but neither animalic nor detergent like.yeah it’s a powdery scent but not a choking chalky dry powder.everything’s done right here in a soft and pretty way.lilac and Jasmine are the strongest florals and they’re not heavy either
I love it’s refreshing,sparkly opening but I love it’s drydown even more which is clean powdery florals rounded by woods and vanilla.I can’t find suitable words to describe how much gorgeous it is and how much I love it
Lasting power seems to be good(about 8 hours on my skin)and it projects softly
This is Chanel no1 for me
Edit:
I didn’t think that I’m going to totally change my idea on this one.I ordered three samples of les exclusifs 1932 Since I loved it but I couldn’t afford a bottle.
I still like it’s opening and middle phase a lot.it smells like drydown of some other chanels.the same jasmine muskyvanilla thing but there’s also a soft powdery veil of lilac and oris root to give it a more powdery,floral twist.
What makes me change my mind from a big love to a big dislike is it’s drydown. Strangely vetiver,incense and opoponax didn’t show up when I first tried it but now they showup after about two hours,covering beautiful powdery florals with their bitter woody aroma.it’s not that soft,pretty and feminine clean musky vanilla-powdery florals anymore.drydown is unisex and has formal,serious warm and bitter woodyness with a slight balsamic,smokey undertone
Sometimes I love vetiver but here it totally ruins this beauty for me(just like Lanvin arpege which I love it’s first hour,then masculine vetiver covers everything)
Well I’m going to give it more tries and wear all these three samples at different times .if it’s drydown stays as it is,it’s a no no for me.I’m heartbroken
seb840Diobtetty – :
This one went from a solid “dislike” to a decent “like” for me. 1932 is light on aldehydes, it is basically jasmine and that trademark Chanel base with a bit of powder. Light, inoffensive, office-friendly and perfect for those who are overwhelmed by the majority of Chanel perfumes’ bold character but still want to smell like Chanel. Longevity could be A LOT better for that price tag, though.
spass – :
I am not a Chanel-fan, but I fell like a stone for 1932. Its soo fresh, clean, bright, exclusive and I feel like a very rich girl wearing this good stuff. 1932 has soft airy aldehyde note blended with some Rose, Orrisroot, Neroli, Vetiver & Musk. 1932 is very longlasting on my skin and the projection is nice, not in the face but makes the next person inhale a deep breath through their nose and say – what a nice perfum you are wearing.
Jag är inget Chanel-fan men jag föll som en sten för 1932. Den är så fräsch, ren, ljus, exklusiv och jag känner mig som en rik flärdig kvinna när jag bär den. 1932 har en luftig aldehydnot som mixas skönt med Ros, Orrisrot, Neroli, Vetiver och Musk. 1932 är en mycket hållbar doft på huden och utstrålningen är fin, inte för mycket utan får nästa person att dra ett långt andetag genom näsan och säga – wow, vilken doft!
mmm599 – :
What does it smell like? Smells like Chanel.
It’s the recognisable Chanel-essence that forms the root of Chanel’s perfumes – the signature – but that’s kind of it. For me, there really aren’t any other layers in it to make it distinctive. It’s pretty, it’s wearable, a bit florally but the day after I’ve worn it, I’ve forgotten about it. Anyone that likes Chanel will like it. I like it. But I just don’t care about it.
Vlad_mobile – :
1932 is stone cold elegance like a diamond.
This is so cold, it makes Guerlains Parure look like an earth mother. She’s elegant, beautiful and unobtainable. The aldehyde opening is there to ward off the masses that love their La Vie En Belle. Chanel 22 seems like a warm crackling fireplace compared to this one. Imagine a grand open ballroom with shiny marble and crystal chandeliers. Thats 1932.
The heart opens up freshly beautiful with some spice. The base begins to warm her up but there is a very ice cold duality to 1932. Elegant ice queen in public, and after a few drinks loosens up a bit but she’s still distant and in control. If waterford crystal had a smell, this be it. Silage is low, understated, rich elegance. Not for everyone. Drydown reminds me of Shalimar PI. More you spray longer it lasts. Recommend skin and clothing like a scarf. EDT version reviewed. Shines in the Fall.
Goold2 – :
people talk about bad longevity…on me it lasts and lasts loooong….really nice!
lulu – :
Not surprised this is the best-selling Chanel Exclusif with Beige – a much better fragrance – as it’s very commercial, not as sophisticated as other perfumes such as 31 Rue Cambon and Misia.
1932 smells good but this should be a mainstream Chanel not an exclusive.
It shares similarities with 31RC, and Allure Sensuelle, just go for 31RC and skip this one unless you want something casual that smells nice at the price of a high end exclusive!
Monk-Errant – :
Really enjoyed reading everyone’s different perspectives. The first time i wore this i was underwhelmed. I found the florals almost sickly but there was a lovely peppery note in the drydown which saved it for me. The musk has really been very prominent for my nose.the aldehydes sparkle. The jasmine is there but for me it is dominated by the musk and lilac. The heart reminds me of f for fascinating (oliver polge fragrance) but without the overwhelming sillage. I found the peppery note in the drydown reminded me of my sniff of modern muse. Notsutewhy they’ve chosen the name 1932. To me it is more of a polite generic modern floral however i hate writing off a chanel until I’ve spent some time understanding it.
k550i – :
I got it!!! really expensive! in my country there is one exclusive Chanel Store… and they only have the 200 ml. bottle … I thought so … but not enought 😉 … I totally agree with Kim Klaus … a complex fragance but obviously chanelly … when I tested at first time I told myself: Coco Cologne!!! a misty, airy, light, sparkling and bright Coco clasique version … For me it s only for Autum or cold week end nights and smells as a potion, some intoxicante drink … may be it has cannabis as absthinte fragance because it has a really misty and herbal, as well as aldheic and spicy and obviouly resinous … A hippy or hipster chick licquor … One of two great Les Exclusifs Chanel creation … The other is Eau the Cologne, no more!
sv12345 – :
I like 1932. It is a classy, undeniably chanelly, quality and a very complex fragrance.
It does last long on me and changes a lot throughout the wear. Starts off as sheer crystallic aldehydes, following strongly pronounced flowers sweetened by vanilla, and finally a dark, woody and earthy base comes forward.
Overall 1932 is sparkling, inviting and even delicious on my skin.
I would recommend it to those who do like Coco Mademoiselle, No 5 Eau Premiere or some of the Chance’s, but find them either too common or too plain. To me they are somewhat alike, while 1932 being far more versatile.
Taummamom – :
When I wear 1932, I almost find myself willing it to be stronger. Or trying it in different seasons, or applying a huge amount of sprays, or donning it like a body spray, but nothing makes it project very much. It is the ultimate wrist sniffer, literally, though this perfume lasts about 6 hours, I can’t smell it on my person unless I am shoving my wrist into my nostrils. Why, Chanel, why, do some of your perfumes have to have such poor strength and lasting power? Especially for this price. For awhile this morning the mousse I scrunched into my hair was wearing stronger than the 1932 I had copiously applied.
Just look at all those notes. Citrus, aldehydes, five different floral notes, and like 10 base notes should add up to more than it really does.
Because it’s not as if I don’t like this perfume. I really do. It has a incense/jasmine/orris root/sandalwood/musky character that is very intoxicating. It is very elegant and mature, and I really love the balance of all the notes, after 30 minutes I can hardly smell anything. I really can’t differentiate any of the floral notes except for the jasmine, either. The musky vetiver sandalwood base is lovely too but sooo hard to detect.
C’mon Chanel you know no one should pay $170 for 75 mls of perfume that has a strength of a body spray, I don’t care how classy it smells.
VEDY79 – :
When will i learn not to review a Chanel before really testing and re-re-testing it?
1932 is a quiet and fun Chanel exclusif. As most Chanel’s, it’s classy, has an elegant cold aura about it. 1932 has all the ingredients to fit in the Chanel family, but with a quiet relaxed exotic twist.
It starts right away with bright, airy jasmine, pear and a fresh note that is surprising and feels fuzzy and bubbly. Nothing show-stopping, the aldehydes are very understated, and overall recalls the fun side of “chance” meets the base of “allure sensuelle”, albeit less warm. It sometimes stays for a long ride, sometimes it doesn’t.
It suffers from the same problem many Chanel perfumes have nowadays; lack of presence and projection.
scent: 7+/10
longevity: 5/10
sillage: 4/10
alligators – :
Tested the parfum and the edt spray. It’s an inoffensive, pretty, generic white floral. If someone gave it to me I’d probably wear it now and then. I’d never buy it and most certainly not at Chanel prices. Even the aldehydes here are weak. No sillage, doesn’t last on skin or fabric. What a disappointing offering from Chanel.
vitalij941 – :
Vveeerrrryyy nice, but just got a sample and although I admit I love a spray bottle better. I would be able to give it a better review. Quite floral, and to me seems like it would last longer that my 22 or Jersey. I don’t think I’m that smitten with it to get a FB yet, but this is just first dab. It is lovely, don’t get me wrong. It works with my chemistry, I just love 22 a whole lot better, and Jersey, right now. Will be back to edit, when I douse myself after shower tomorrow. We shall see how I feel after I wear it a few times. Seems a little more “dress up” than those I mention. To be continued…….
and96715426 – :
Exquisite fragance, I d called COCO COLOGNE !!! A light and luminose or misty Coco clasic, may be it has the same ingredients! Gorgeous and very expensive fragance!!!
SABAKA EBAKA – :
I got a decant of this in a split, I was hesitant as the reviews weren’t amazing but it sounded like something I wanted to try. I am in love, it is the most beautiful, cleanest, sparkling, refreshing fragrance I have ever tried. The initial burst stays around for hours and the slightly woody dry down was still going 8 hours later. It is the epitome of class and understated elegance, I think this does have a similar vibe to eau premiere No 5 and poudre 19 but I still think I need it in my wardrobe. I personally think it should be categorised as a floral aldehyde rather than floral woody musk.
truenemann – :
This is quite lovely and very much unisex. I can imagine wearing it during a springtime.
It stays discreet like an understated elegance should.
6yjib – :
I have bought this fragrance today. It is very Chanel and reminds me of several other. To me, it is a spring scent. It is cold in a No18 or No19 kind of way. Really closer to No 18 IMHO. To me, it has vetiver/ambrette/orris, it is woody and maybe earthy too. Very casual. The comparison to 31 rue Cambon is also easy to make, but to me 31 rue Cambon is seductive. 1932 is not. Sillage is terrible, but longevity is there. I really like this. I will use it mostly in the summer as a cologne after the shower. Just to feel fresh and relax. The pricetag is outrageous for the sillage. For me, I have a lot of fragrances that have huge sillage and staying power, I now need to have elegant fragrances that are discreet.
kav9036 – :
I don’t know what to make of my experience with 1932. The opening is intensely floral aldehydic with a sweet orange fizzy note. The heart notes reveal gorgeous sillage that gives off waves of sweet vanillic powdery florals, but when smelled closer to the skin, it smells very much like a chypre. The drydown smells like a chypre, actually it smells almost identical to 31 Rue Cambon in the drydown minus about 1/3 the intensity.
I love 31 Rue Cambon, but I can’t figure out why I’d buy 1932 for the same (but weaker) drydown but with different short lived heart notes.
A puzzling offer from Chanel.
seroff2981 – :
An overpriced, soft, cuddly, somewhat generic floral scent with poor longevity.
It reminds me of Hermes Equipage.
Not for me.
Mutraltclarry – :
Leafs.
Fresh bitter leafs cutted and white flowers.
steelhawk – :
This would make a lovely spring perfume, but due to the poor longevity, it is way too costly.
public2011 – :
When I first tried 1932, I didn’t appreciate it very much. I felt like it was Rue Cambon light and wasn’t really needed. I sort of didn’t get the addition. But now I do! This is the perfect daily year round scent and it has grown on me so very much. Sometimes when I don’t want my perfume to announce itself and I want something light and casual but still elegant, this is what I reach for. It has a casual yet refined vibe that I love. I love the musky woody base along with the combination of floral and citrus notes. The jasmine in this is beautiful. 1932 is something that always works no matter what kind of mood I am in. I love 31 Rue Cambon but sometimes it can feel a bit much or way too formal, especially the first hour or two. 1932 gives me a similar feeling of the Rue Cambon dry down only it is more casual and light. Sort of like an instant dry down. It is also a scent I kind of crave in the same way.
About longevity….I think there is a potent quality about Les Exclusifs that makes people go temporarily hyposmic. This happened to me in the beginning and I thought the fragrances were really light and disappeared. But it was just my nose. I have to avoid breathing in the opening for about 10 minutes and that seems to solve the problem. And never, ever spot sniff where you applied it. That will make your nose shut down. But now that I avoid immediately smelling the opening I have found this line to be very long lasting and pretty powerful.
If I had to live on a deserted island and could only bring one fragrance line with me I believe it would have to be Les Exclusifs. I never get tired of it and love everything in the whole line. Even the ones I was iffy about initially seem to turn into loves with time. A phenomenal fragrance line that has my heart. Even 1932.
Olechka1210 – :
Do you want to smell like headache inducing soap? No? Me either. I have never wanted to scrub off a perfume so bad until 1932. My head blasted with pain as soon as I put it on. It’s not worthy of being in the exclusives range I can tell you that much. Boring. Moving on quickly from this.
jjlana – :
At first, I get the aldehydes but then it eventually settles into a fruity floral that is fairly underwhelming. Nothing stands out. Not impressed with this one. I don’t dislike it, but I don’t feel the need to keep wearing it- although I paid for a sample, so I will. 🙂
serom – :
I find 1932 rather inoffensive and, for my tastes, a little underwhelming. A little aldehyde, a little floral, a little sparkling bergamot, a little wood and not enough of anything outstanding.
Beautiful I suppose, but without much character compared to other Chanel fragrances. I hesitate to state that, as sometimes a versatile nondescript pretty floral is all a girl needs in certain situations. Although, you can probably find better for greater value.
Overall, a gently sparkling lilac-rose fruity floral without the earlier Chanel hallmarks.
alexiaa – :
Reading these reviews is making me wonder if I have scent-glue skin, because this has lasted 8 hours on me. True, I did give it 5 sprays this morning, at least 3 more than usual cause i thought it had faded fast. Nope – during on the bus 20 minutes later I began to smell a lovely vanilla something. Took me a few minutes before realizing it came from me!
Will have to keep wearing this sample, but initial wear was very nice and beyond my expectations.
Update 7.30.2014:
Tried 1932 again the other night and it is lovely.
xcho86 – :
soap, soap, soap, and then one hour later, gone. nope, nope, nope….
tetrarh86 – :
A lovley every-day-fragrance. Chanel is not my no 1 but this one is! Thanx Jannah for the sample =)
En underbar varje-dag-doft. Chanel är inte no 1 för mig men denna kan bli det! Tack Jannah för doftprovet =)
Alex_Kreuz – :
I tried this today, and at first I absolutely loved it!! Left the store, and within 30 min it was gone!!! Needless to say I will not be buying this.
spjawiy – :
Embarrassingly ordinary scent from Chanel with NO lasting power. Sure, it does smell nice but only in a Sarah Jessica Parker Twilight flanker sort of way.
Michael_Roy – :
I have both the EdT and the Parfum of this now and I have to say I think it’s stunning. I agree it has many similarities with 31 Rue Cambon. However while I adore Rue Cambon, it isn’t all that suitable for warmer weather. It’s an excellent all purpose winter and autumn fragrance which is suffuse with elegance.
1932 on the other hand suits warm weather perfectly. Having removed the dense woody portion of Rue Cambon Jacque Polge filled the gaps with some of the most intense, lushous, fruity Jasmine there is. Genuine Egyptian Jasmine too. In the Parfum it’s almost akin to some deliciously fruity dessert wine. Golden, mandarin or satsuma-like.
The interplay between the Iris, Bergamot, Jasmine and softer base make this fragrance akin, in my mind, to intense, golden sunlight. It’s ineffably beautiful.
If you prefer heavier, more animalic, more woody, more ambery things and think that florals are trite or dull then this probably won’t push your buttons. But if however, like me, you find infinite variety and amazement in the subtle beauty of floral scents then you will love this. A must for Jasmine lovers and probably a must for anyone who wears Rue Cambon as a winter signature but misses wearing it in the summer.
If you can you must smell the Parfum.
malagutti – :
Very elegant aroma, easy to wear in all occasions. Unfortunately it lasts only two hours on me, which is a shame for such a costly perfume. If you have and like 31 Rue Cambon or even Chanel Chance Eau Premiere, don’t bother to buy.
mostit – :
31 Rue Cambon minus patchouli.
killer13 – :
I must say that I was a little disappointed with this one first. found it too fruity-floral-boring, even harsh and didn’t even get curious enough to spray it on skin…
but last time visiting a chanel store I sprayed it on a card and put it into my pocket and- as often- forgot it for a day…and I must say…I am really smitten by this drydown which is really special and very pleasing…as soon as the iris sneaks around and a little wood shines through it gets so powdery and elegant.. the card still smells after many days and it still is quite interesting;-) I am really looking forward to testing 1932 on skin…
edit: have tested it on skin, but it fades quickly and the drydown on skin is not as obvious as on paper. meaning that the drydown I meant above is the very late drydown, shortly before it fades completely, the stages before that, I don’t like a lot…I’ll pass…and I would recommend it for lovers of “allure” or “coco mademoiselle”..
b001t – :
1932 is one of the nicest chanel exclusifs in my opinion , yes it’s not as long lasting as others and it’s not as unique as some of the others but its sooo nice and sweet and pretty. Its a great every day scent , not as formal as some of the others and therefor much more wearable. I just love it. I do not get the aldehyde at all in this one. Just a sweet fruity woody vanilla , just beautiful. Casual elegance .
Quite orangey , love it !
Update. I love HILAIRE ‘s review.
dreamerslipknot – :
I agree with Alfarom’s description although I will say the opening is more unique to 1932 and bears an echo of 31 RC but it’s not like No. 5, 19, 18, 22 Coco, Cuir de Russie, Bois des Iles, Coromandel or the other main Chanels I am familiar with. I will go out on a limb and say 1932 is underrated…by some.
This is a very pretty floral that harks back to another time, a rose-iris accord underscored with jasmine and violet to my nose, softened with sandalwood, sweetened with oppoponax and vanilla, dirtied a little with coumarin on a wood and vetiver base. This gives an effect that is reminiscent of the fruity patchouli-iris of 31 RC.
I think of it as a floral eau de cologne intense because of its composition and how it wears. I’m sure the creators would disagree because of the complexity and beauty of its heart notes. But…still. That’s how I wear it.
This fragrance is light but tenacious–at least on my skin (slightly oily, olive complected). It is pretty and it is elegant yet casual at the same time. There is good sillage. The accord is neither overt nor bombastic.
I enjoy florals but find many of them too heady or too specific for my casual lifestyle. 24 Faubourg is gorgeous but difficult to put on at 9 AM when I’m usually getting ready for the day. 1932 is great in the morning. It’s great in the afternoon. It works in the evening. It’s very all-purpose.
I give it a 9.1/10 in the category of soft florals, because of how hard it is to find easy-to-wear florals, which this is, and how pretty it actually smells and wears.
The only caveat is that it feels overpriced for what it delivers at $260/ bottle. I think this is because it’s so understated in its presence. It’s like a perfect white shirt–always enhances, but never takes the stage. Maybe it is worth paying that price for something so understated and elegant, as long as it’s a great fit.
2007dda – :
per winx61: a Milano alla Rinascente c’è il corner con gli esclusivi Chanel. Credo valga la pena dare un occhio. Sono concessionari esclusivi. Se non ce l’hanno lì in italia non li trovi in altri negozi.
For winx61: At Rinascente Store there is the Chanel corner, with the Exclusives Chanel. If you have a chance to go I think it’s the only place in italy where you can find out it.
m3al – :
Opens with the typical aldehydes / iris combo signature of many Chanels to then quickly evolve into a prettified green-jasmine soliflore built around a woody-vetiver base. Nice and overpriced. It could have been a winner if just released in their regular range instead of the Les Exclusifs.
Too little.
Rating: 6/10
allalina – :
Beautiful, shimmery scent.
Iris and Jasmine float right up to you when you first apply. Lilac, incense and carnation become apparent about an hour later. The rose is very soft in this fragrance, but there. Bergamot keeps everything fresh and sparkly.
It is perfect for daytime or night, or anytime you want to smell pretty.
Vlad777 – :
Les Exclusifs de Chanel – 1932
On the begining i can get a citrus green touch plus a fresh and warm orange feeling.
Once time goes, cremy floral accord appears, being smooth and mild, and the musc note is also very present during its evolution on skin among powdery touches of iris.
I think it is a simple scent and it did not make the difference on my skin, changing a little – above my expectations.
The notes i was waiting, they did not come to say hello – opoponax, sandalwood, rose, vetiver – they were hidden!
What a pity!
🙁
sapta – :
Very distinctly Chanel: reminds me too much of No 5 which I dislike. I also get a faint unpleasant marzipan whiff from this.
Vfrcbvtyrj – :
Obviously refined fragrance chilly, goodie, cute, but no soul.
Maybe I’m in a strange period, but the scents of the line “Les Exclusifs” (some of them) seem variations on the same theme. “Beige” which resembles “Sycomore” that looks like “Jersey” that looks like .. I’m lost.
Perhaps the nose Messieur Polge lately dares very little, a light blow would not hurt.
Nothing new under the sky.
masha755 – :
I agree with sweetnspicey… this is a miserable addition. never last more than 30 minutes.
xorex – :
1932 by Chanel was released in the Exclusifs line as homage to the year that Coco Chanel debut her diamond jewelry collection. Not a zircon or rhinestone was to be seen in that magnificent presentation of stones which Mademoiselle gave to the world in the worst year of the Great Depression. But we are not so lucky with the premiere of this new perfume.
1932 is not a star shimmering in diamonds from the silver screen. This is only paste in a beautiful setting, faux beauty made of mirrored glass and presented as glamour only to be outshone by the real stars that have come before from this house. No.5, Cristalle, No.19, Sycomore, Coromandel, Cuir de Russie are but a few of the stars of Chanel. 1932 is something brought in from Central Casting, a day player, an extra that fades quickly into the scenery. At her very best she is a stand in for a star like No.19, a pale