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.
Klopomor1987 – :
This is possibly one of the most under-rated male fragrance (along with Feeling Man by Jil Sander) of all time. Launched at a time when fresh aquatic scents crowded the shelves, Insense was deemed to fail with its loud yellow box, odd surfboard looking bottle and further crippled by a man laughing in a field of yellow flowers campaign. Unable to set a tone that men can relate to, its marketing was a complete fiasco.
The scent itself is unconventional (and still is) and amazing on skin – a combination of sharp citrus, basil and floral aldehydes. Sadly, back in the 90’s, men were not prepared to smell like this. It bombed miserably, and quickly ended up in bargain bins selling at dismal prices within a few years.
Fast forward to the 2000’s, it became available again (in Switzerland of all places), in the same yellow box, but in a flat retangular shaped medicine bottle with a simple black round cap (taking cues from Chanel). It is undoubtedly a reformulation with less herbal intensity and projection, but still fairly close to the wonderful original nevertheless. Again, the 2000 edition came and went as nobody seems to care for it.
Now comes the Mythical edition, which is tweaked and diluted yet again. Nice fancy bottle but more like a pale hommage to the original.
In conclusion, think of the original as the eau de parfum (winter wear), the 2000 edition as the eau de toilette (spring and warm autumn) and the Mythical edition as eau de cologne (summer fragrance). Personally, I own multiples of all 3, since I know it will disappear again in the near future.
I love it to bits – always have and always will. It is an unloved hidden gem that is so unique, yet still way ahead of its time.
skydog – :
Agree with rscbking, please make the pertinent correction with the spelling. Now, can anybody please tell me if there’s any difference between this one and the original presentation? I would like to order a bottle, and I cannot decide which one to order, since the one person I’m ordering it from has both in their catalogue.
Oxibiadig – :
I have both botles and the liquid inside seems to smell quite similar. But I always forget to make a test and spray both versions on different hands and compare.
ganszzz – :
“Insence” ???
LOL… Fragrantica, “Insensé”… please!
vvoov – :
the question for those who’ve sampled this: Is this a “re-release” of the original Insense?
Inwarpwrank – :
Hi there, please can we get this spelt correctly? Cheers.