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.
LESCINN – :
I love this parfum. The first bottle I bought was in Big Lots in the mid 80’s .50 parfum for $3.00. My friends told me I smelled like a dirty wash cloth, I didn’t care I loved it. Today this .50 bottle sells for $126.00 on ebay. The triangle shaped bottles (shown above) are not original and made by Irma Shorrel. They smell similar but not the same as the original. I grew up with the stronger/more silage style of parfums, that doesn’t mean I don’t go for the newer more parred down versions made today for the times when I will be in more confined spaces with people that may be sensitive. But the bottom line is there is no beating the vintage versions if you want the full force, only need a drop for the day. If only I knew what would become of the industry I would have loaded up when the bottles were only $3.00. Live and learn, today may be the yesteryear of tomorrow.
huusernamel6 – :
I remember smelling this scent in the 80’s I knew it would be a scent I would never forget. Unfortunately when I was old enough to buy it, I was told it was discontinued. I thought the scent was lost forever. I was pleased to discover Fracas which was to me almost the same. I bought Fracas and felt like it was made just for me. It was everything I wanted in a scent. I will always remember Madeleine Mono, a beautiful unique scent that is attached to my happy 80’s memories.
Nazar711 – :
I am trying to order Madeleine de Madeleine. How do I do it?
axavel – :
Opens up a bit unisex as a dry fracas. I love Fracas more but I do like this parfum. I am so surprised with all the fame & glory of Fracas, why did Madeleine de Madeleine not become more renowned.
The scent is very up to date and is available in edp but takes a little bit of searching.
This is Refined and very suited for years to come.
Opening dry tuberose with SPICY overtones
Heart a beautiful tuberose (cross between Fracas and Estee Lauder Private Collection Tuberose Gardenia.) Leans much stronger towards Robert Piguets Lovely perfume “Fracas”.
This is so nice, so so so nice. Its a dry fruity tuberose. Well made and would seem by the scent is definatly smell of a tuberose powerhouse niche.
A man can definatly wear this white floral.
It is dry but not earthy. It is well suited for any occasion and not loud or pungent. so nice to find this.
between Fracas & Madeleine, I pick Fracas. Madeline is the closest Fracas style Fragrance.
Madeleine de Madeleine: 9.5/10
Sanhes10082 – :
This is a beautiful, realistic tuberose – this fragrance reminds me of walking the streets of Lahaina at sunset in July. Madeleine de Madeleine is crisp, therefore easier to wear than Fracas, and it’s not nearly as disturbing as Carnal Flower, but it still has that kick-a$$ attitude that only tuberose can convey. This is my favorite tuberose fragrance, and nothing intrigues me more, or haunts me like a tuberose perfume.
ramale – :
Very pretty! I get mostly tuberose and Lilly of the valley on my skin with a soft classical powder which whispers, not screams. Although this is something I probably wouldn’t wear, it is quite pretty and would be beautiful on the right person.
nzf570Unlogrere – :
Tuberose for me is a little like playing with fire. It’s exciting but it can wind up overpowering and scary on my skin. Fracas’s opening is beautiful, but it takes over and gets really “hot” and high pitched on my skin. Blonde is also beautiful and interesting but becomes bitter. Madeleine de Madeleine has just about the same opening on my skin as Fracas and Blonde, perhaps less peach, but the dry down is milder and less high pitched. The lasting power is great without being overwhelming. Recommended for Fracas lovers and even those who cringe in her wake.
Hoimbubborp – :
What can I say, this is a classic at this point in time. But, it still smells fabulous. Very similar to Fracas, but with a crisper take on the tuberose. Not so sticky sweet. It is as if someone took the best of Fracas and put it in an 80’s power suit, but then decided to take it down a notch, without ever missing a beat. It felt fabulous wearing this when it first came out and it feels like visiting with an old friend now; one who still looks great and makes you feel like you did way back when. A very relevant scent 35 years ago and still a very relevant (albeit classic) scent now. Puts all the dreck from all these “new” houses to shame.
sumrak1 – :
I had never even heard of this fragrance, but find myself captivated by the notes and the fascinating era in which it was released.
Will someone who has tested this floral beauty review it for the rest of us?
Thanks!