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.
wordok89 – :
i agree 100% with Action .
I too , give all perfumes a chance , and i have many “Cheapies” that i like.
I tested these in the same store that had the “Girads” on cheap . The SITC bottles are up for £2.99 each in my fave local discount perfume/make up shop. Unfortunately these SITC flankers smelt the same as the Girads to me – Cheapo , nasty , no discernible pleasant notes such as fruit or flowers .
A Sweaty Sock note that i can only guess is a cheaply produced , synthetic “Musk” seems to be the common theme in some of these cheaper scent lines.
Once i smell that very noticeable smell , its a NO NO and a scrubber !
Maybe these cheaper scents would be better if they left THAT musk note out , but i suspect they need it to “Hold” the composition together. No difference between each flanker’s smell and the 2 brands. No wonder there all on at £2.99 and the poor guy in the shop wishes he had never got them in !
salamon – :
I received a different variation of this as a sample today called Love Spell – same bottle design, only it’s purple, not pink.
I might have a hard time giving this a fair chance but the whole design and feel is just so cheap that I really struggle with looking at the scent in an unbiased way. It’s ok, I guess but reminds me a little of lubricant/massage oil. See.. told you I had a hard time giving it a chance – I blame the logo design.
It’s a sweet, powdery floral. My guess is lot’s of jasmine and patchouli, maybe some rose even. Not sure. Sweet is all I get. Not my cup of tea.
ALEXEY777 – :
I got this for christmas from a friend and man was this the cheapest looking perfume i had ever gotten. It comes off as a really cheap floral perfume, it even has beads/plastic balls in it. So 80s..so creepy. I gave this to my mom but i think she ended up giving it away. Please people don’t ever buy this for a friend. Yeah it might be around $10 but put in 2 or 3 more dollars and buy your friend a victoria secret body mist such as love spell or amber romance.
Viniariunda – :
I am known to give all perfumes a fair chance, but this line did not suit me.