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.
dima.riga – :
From the Perfume Intelligence site:
“One of the legendry Arabian fragrances once offered to the Maharani of Jaïpur, the wealthy Indian princess and famous society beauty of the 1940s and 1950s. It was originally formulated in 1919, a rich floral-oriental edp with notes of ylang-ylang, lily of the valley and jasmine on base notes of exotic spices and aromatic woods. Re-launched in 1989.”
This is indeed a woody spicy floriental with prominent notes of jasmine, ylang ylang and a soapy lily of the valley, along with a less obvious but very present heliotrope. It is quite potent, and longlasting on me. The opening is a little astringent, a little green, a little medicinal. The resins appear early and stay for the duration, and provide an interesting resinous, balsamic quality that is almost piney, and a little sappy. Oak moss for certain. No tonka or vanilla, nothing sweet, creamy or gourmand. Instead this is bracing, a little austere. Some would consider it masculine; it is thick, but not smoky, with no incense vibe.
An old school floral oriental, Malabar has an exotic spiciness that opens with a clove/carnation note and finishes with what i believe is fresh green cardamom. This does not really blend seamlessly with the heliotrope, they don’t clash so much as they poke their little heads up and down like pistons, clamoring to be heard.
Eventually they exhaust themselves, and fall into a muttering stupor, allowing the woods to dominate, along with the rich floral heart. Composed of ylang ylang, paired with jasmine and a hint of rose, it is a potent floral accord. At this point the LOTV is strong, and soapy, and I wish it wasn’t. Now there is sandalwood, cedar, maybe cypress, but no patchouli, and something else, something deep and sappy and mysterious, something woody but not dry.
This is an austere aesthetic, as jtd says, there is no intention to seduce. This is not a pretty or sexy scent, but to me it is beautiful. By the end, this seemed to be very green, a woody green floral more than an oriental.
8282545 – :
I went through a bottle of the original Malabar about 10 years or so ago. I believe that the florals had the character of ylang-ylang more than that of a rose or a jasmine. The closest scent to it is one by L.T. Piver’s Le Reve d’Or. I probably wouldn’t ever buy this again (aside from the fact that it’s well nigh unobtainable) because there was just something slightly medicinal smelling to my nose.
PlogoutgorO – :
Crown Perfumery Malabar is a perfume originally composed in 1919. Crown Perfume is now defunct, having been bought and unceremoniously dropped by Clive Christian. Apparently, he just wanted the crown image/bottle. I find it a little tough to draw a bead on Malabar not for its old-fashioned tone, but because what I sniff today might have nothing to do with the original version. Also, I know virtually nothing about 20th century English perfumery.
I was expecting something explicitly floral. Rosy, sweet, comfortable. My thought was that this would be a perfume to suit a prim, well turned-out English girl of some one of the British upper classes. But then again, 1919. WW I. Spanish flu. Perhaps not the most optimistic of years. But as it turns out, Malabar ignored my expectation. It’s a woody-floral, more precicely a woody-floriental. It doesn’t have the heady, voluptuousness that I associate with French perfumery’s approach to florals in the 20th century. Malabar is more, ‘Hhhmmm… interesting’ than it is come-hither. Malabar has the virtue of drawing attention to the person, not the perfume.
And here is precisely where Malabar seems old-fashioned. It uses beauty to express aesthetics, not to entice. It doesn’t lead with sex. Being interesting or compelling are not attributes targeted either by the focus group or the perfume brief. Not enough exclamation points and capital letters. Hard to capture in a sound bite.
Qualitatively, Malabar strikes an almost dissonant set of top notes. It’s not dissimilar to two often maligned perfume: Estée by Estée Lauder and Jean Patou 1000. They’re called old-lady perfume, bug-spray. Classic Woody-florals have a sharpness that appeals to me. And the best woody florals are built for the long hall. The top notes are often sharp and astringent. The top notes aren’t so much dry as tacky, like drying paint. The Patou and the Lauder both have this quality. But in the heart-notes and dry down all three have a particular characteristic of aloofness. When talking about a person, aloofness implies a standing back, not participating. But it also suggests observation, consideration, reflection. The allure of the woody floral is that it takes you in close enough to the wearer to wonder and to be intrigued. These perfumes strike at a very specific range, close, but not too close and suggest a distinction often missed—the difference between allure and tease. Malabar, 1000 & Estée don’t play with you. They aren’t coy. They’re complex.
Volume, sillage, duration. Theses are a perfume’s tools. They are the settings, the control panel. A ‘pretty’ perfume doesn’t leave you wondering. A bouncing floral bouquet shows you happiness in all its shine, even if the strain of happiness shows through. Most fruity florals tell you at 30 paces exactly what they tell you when you’re standing next to them. It’s the smiley face of perfumery. The neo-aquatics of the Cool Water school also tell you the same thing at a distance that they do up-close. Masculine, normal. It is un-nuanced and quite deliberately so. The person who wears this wants no mistake to be made about his gender or his place in the pack.
As far as nuance, revelation and affiliation go, the masculine aquatic couldn’t be more different than the classic woody-floral. The woody-floral eschews notions such as the immutable first impression, or the hand-in-hand notion that expectability is a virtue and ambiguity is a sin. Ambiguity isn’t uncertainty and mystery isn’t simply something you don’t know.