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.
souratnererry – :
Scored a full 2-ounce vintage EDC on eBay—this stuff is every bit as dirty and potent as vintage Bal à Versailles or YSL Kouros. Lavish sillage and monstrous longevity. Lusciously sweet and spicy but not cloying thanks to the herby tarragon, which also muddies the masc–femme waters nicely. The civet, as with Kouros, strikes a definite “sex glands” chord. Wear confidently but in moderation!
47jwzzwj74 – :
How shocking dirty is it?
I feel brought back 1 century.
My imaginary world of perfumes from one century ago smells like this.
Overwhelming pissy civet that peed on my wrist and then went off and back taking me some Jasmin, ylang ylang, dirty ones, covered with something “airy” (aldehydes??), and then, again, pissy stuff.
I can wear this at home, by myself, for myself, closing my eyes and imaging to be at court, wearing ‘800 outfit, smelling my sweaty clothes, surrounded by flowers, dirty flowers, looking at the queen hiding her face behind a fan and her king, looking at her, lascivious and willing to possess her .
It’s hot, it’s night, it’s paradise
vfy742intitytek – :
Nothing really “shocks” me anymore after I’ve gotten so used to wearing Bal a Versailles (especially the EdC), My Sin, Tabu, Occur!, Ciara…all those interesting, provocative animalics! But Shocking is definitely a fabulous addition to my collection; it is luscious–like Lanvin My Sin with a big fat honey note and green tarragon adding a bit of zest.
Shocking is strong stuff. It lasts and lasts and projects mightily and shapeshifts during its long life. Sometimes it’s sweet, sometimes it’s musty, sometimes it’s skanky, sometimes it’s spicy.. every whiff I get is something a little different. So much depth and complexity to this one.
This is an essential addition to any animalic-lover’s collection!
roreinciara – :
I had an excellent streak of luck on ebay– finding vintage “unicorns” for affordable prices! I have an Eau de Cologne of Shocking, a 80% full 2 oz.
Reading reviews and notes, I expected something along the lines of Avon Occur (which I LOVE) but…
This is much different!
With honey and civet in common, it’s like Occur at first, but there is something darker, greener, and spicy here. At first I do get clean/aldehydes/green and slight sweetness/honey. It moves rather quickly to floral depth and then onto smoky, spicy, woody, civet perfection. Also a bit green chypre too. This isn’t sweet, and I really don’t find the honey past the first blast. It’s got a retro clean sharpness like Irish Spring soap. It’s pine-y- maybe that’s the clove? Also reminds me of Intimate by Revlon.
It’s got this clean vibe. Fresh but in a vintage way. Dusty fresh? Musty clean? Haha! The honey is dirty here, rather than smooth-sweet in Occur. And something is vintage powdery.
Huge sillage/potency so far. Absolutely amazing. Such quality and potency in vintage colognes. Do not dismiss them!
My verdict after wearing for about 3 hours on skin. Smells very much like Intimate. I think I’ll prep my Shocking with a pre-spritz of Avon Occur to sweeten things up next time.
Karslon – :
TERRIBLY AMUSING!
Narcissus civet at MAX with hints of honey, olibanum, aldehydes, galbanum, musk, cloves, lime, and ylang.
This is a potion that turns back time! it is the shattered glass liquid that inflict beauty, & turns back time beyond horizons. Revive youth and revive shallow beauty. It’s evil yet useful to regain your beauty. It’s weird but true!
I haven’t witnessed something groundbreaking & astonishing like “Shocking” in a very long time! “Odor 93”, “Salome”. “La Nuit by Paco Rabanne”, and “Kemi by Kemi Blending Magic”, where the last potions and it’s been a while.
Edit (1st July 2018) Now i realized where did i smell this fragrance! It’s similar to Penhaligon’s “Hammam Bouquet! very huge similarity there.
irortixarinly – :
Review for a 90’s formulation bottle. I finally got my hands on a bottle of this legendary perfume. Sampled it for the first time 2 years ago ago and loved it: it became a slightly spicy/powdery, but a very smooth honey/musk on me. It was great and I have been looking for a bottle ever since.
I don’t know if my bottle has another formulation compared to the sample, or if my chemistry has changed, but it’s not a love anymore. A real shame, because I adore the bottle and the honey/musk combination.
It opens with a lot of aldehydes on my skin, which transition into a -very floral- mid. I also suspect a fruit/peach note is in the opening, because it has a fruity tinge. It reminds me of Tresor at this moment which is not a great thing.
The mid is almost too much for me, except it’s balanced by the tarragon and the very lovely honey note. It smells very fleshy/indolic/full to me, along with a very powdery rose. Rose and jasmine are the ones I can smell the best (daffodil might also be an option but I haven’t smelled a lot of Daffodil centred perfumes). However, the combination of rose/jasmine/aldehydes + honey + that fruity note makes it smell very 90’s/old-school imo.
The drydown works a bit better for me. The florals disappear and make place for civet/amber/musk/clove. The musk is very smooth and lovely, the best aspect of Shocking. I don’t smell a lot of civet though and the amber gives it a nice ‘warm’ hue. I also get a slight menthol tinge, which is caused by the patchouli/clove I think.
I’m left with a powdery rose honey musk, along with spicy/menthol facets coming from the basenotes. This combination is quite queasy and it smells like body odour + honey/rose potpourri on me. I can actually imagine that it simply works better on a female chemistry. Longevity is okay, about 7/8 hours and sillage is quite big in the beginning, but it dies down after 3 hours.
dane – :
Read a previous review that said this perfume reminded her of something from her childhood. I suspect that is because it strangely reminds me of Mennen’s Baby Magic Lotion!! That is not to say, that the pure vintage perfume that I am currently wearing is by any means powdery or soft. It’s sharp, edgy, funky and complex. It’s just that it smells like Baby Magic lotion…which I love.
iri89 – :
Vintage Bottle Review: I like it, but I am not in love. Maybe it was the big build up, maybe I am too partial to my Bal V, or maybe it’s because I received it the same day I received my Zibeline, but I feel like it’s just “ok”. For me , I have an initial bitter smell, which leaves pretty quickly to allow the civet and honey to take over, BUT, it isn’t overpowering and I don’t mean that as a compliment. This is very soft and muted smelling on me. Someone would need to get up close and personal to smell this on me. I want other people to smell me coming and I want to be able to smell myself all day. This one, which I am wearing now 5 hours in, is just giving me an aromatic honey when my nose is pressed to my wrist.
meezoo – :
Ok, the time has come for an “informative” review:D
I got a decant of this perfume from my lovely Friend here a few months ago. It was winter, so I only sprayed a tiny bit of it and I wanted to scream, run and hide!!!:-O I was right in my suspicions that these notes would kill me… and so they did, that evening! I thought that I should wait until June.
Now it’s a cool, June evening, jasmines are beginning to bloom, the air is fresh, the windows are open and my spirits are high – time for testing!:D
The first seconds reminded me of an old, Bulgarian rose oil that my grandma once gave me – a tiny vial in a wooden container with rose ornaments. I still have it somewhere, it’s gone totally rancid but Shocking smells exactly the same!!!!!:-O This rancid rose-oil note… Sentiments, oh, sentiments!
Yes, aldehydes are quite loud here, but they’re not overwhelming and they’re not the bitter ones – rather the sweet ones – those that I dislike most… but here they’re so well blended that it really makes sense! So does the Ylang and delicate cloves and honey. Musk isnt’ overwhelming, civet makes it a little bitter – which is good in this case!
My conclusion – this certainly is a monster, a very dangerous one but you may make friends with her – like the dragon from “Shrek”, the mule’s girlfriend:D She’s likeable but you’d better not mess with her!
From the nostalgic point of view – it’s a treasure. For me it’s a grandma’s perfume or even great-grandma’s – forever in the boudouir, passed on from generation to generation as a family treasure. Never to be used, unless on very special occasions, rather to be opened every now and then to be sniffed, cherished and put back in the closet until another big occasion.
From the practical olfactory point of view – never to be used in small, crowded spaces – too headache-inducing, smelling rancid – ok, maybe in really tiny amounts. But perfect for a romantic walk in an old garden on a sunny June Saturday – why not?:) With a retro-style dress and preferably with a retro-style-gentleman:D I’ll only wear it for fun, when I’m in this retro-romantic mood:)
A gem, a joke, a monster, a memory, a tribute, love, puke, joy, rose garden, nostalgia – all in one bottle, depending on the mood, weather and momentary perception – that’s what Shocking is to me (not that it smells like puke, no offense, but it can make you puke if you’re not into this type of rich yellow-floral/aldehydic old-fashioned scents). Most precious experience to be able to smell it and to have a decant!:D
Nowadays we have new releases such as Izia that try to mock this category – but they stay far behind the original! The 1930’s was surely the time for such big, genuine productions – it’s great that we can still have such perfumes around and enjoy them even if slightly reformulated. This is 10 times better than Izia – good, ole formulation and style!:D
Art doesn’t have to be easy in perception, it’s just art!
Oh, btw it goes really well with Riesling!;-)))))
vovchik9691 – :
This is a request to Fragantica to put up the first perfume S from the house of Elsa Sciaparelli.
You can find a full request and a loot of information and reviews of this cultperfume on the Fragantica forum for perfumes not yet on Fragantica.
Please put up Elsa Sciaparellies perfume S on Fragrantica. She was her times biggest fashion icon – even more famous then Coco Chanel at the time.
kant – :
This is not an informative review but I simply had to post it:
This perfume holds so many notes that I hate that I just have to try it! It must be like a legendary monster that seems awful but in fact has a good heart… Is it? I’d so much love to test it!
Deroxnhpeb – :
Shocking
I was not shocked. I was enchanted!
The 1937 vintage bottle was one of my mother’s perfumes which she wear very infrequently.
Shocking is a rather traditional civet-musk fragrance in the vein of later fragrances like Bal A Versailles by Jean Desprez. However during it’s time it had more in common with fragrances such as My Sin by Lanvin and Scandal by Lanvin.
It’s aldehydic, floral and musky. It’s nocturnal and meant to be worn as an evening cologne with formal wear. It can also double as a Church perfume.
The citrus swims in aldehydes and tarragon, herbal, citrusy and fresh. The aldehydes takes me back. It smells like so many old time aldehydes i.e. Chanel No. 5. The scent is long lasting, a sillage monster, with a lot of depth and spice, unisex, and elegant.
The floral notes include deep rose, heady jasmine and ylang ylang. The flowers are not powdery nor soapy, nor are they sweet. They are more along the line of green floral scents. The flowers come and go before the dry down.
A sweet and balsamic honey note is my favorite part of the scent.
The cloves, musk and civet are strong but so is the amber and patchouli. There’s also incense. All these notes are Oriental perfume notes and I like that. This is mostly musk to me so it’s easier to wear in winter time when it gets cold in London. The honey note is also quite arm.
This is a beautiful perfume and rather underrated because it’s not Chanel No. 5 or even Joy by Patou. This scent is from the same era but it has not received enough praises that it deserves.
As it is, it’s not as sexy or as seductive as fragrances like My Sin, Scandal (Lanvin) Bal a Versailles (Desprez) or even Tabu by Dana (my favorite). However because it is in the same category as those other scents if you wear them you can feel just as sexy. I used to wear this to dinner dates when I was single and in between marriages. It was a spicy fragrance with tarragon and patchouli which smelled herbal, slightly flowery and deliciously honeyed. I saw it as more of a gourmand fragrance.
Today you can find a reformulation which I have not yet tried and I can only speak on behalf of the vintage original. If you can find it, you will be floored and fascinated.
Infuflale – :
I was super excited to try this and bought a vintage bottle of EDT on eBay. I am disappoint. Maybe it’s just how this bottle has aged but I found it sweet, soapy, powdery, a bit honeyed and not much civet. A bit like Chanel 5 but not as complex.
ikril – :
Cologne concentre = one of the best perfumes of extrait concentration ever created.
A beautiful honeyed floral. Gorgeous.
They don’t make ’em anymore………….
Alizillorshot – :
This one is hard to review, mainly because it walks a fine line between sophistication and outright skankiness. My first exposure to shocking was in the pages of Scent and Subversion, written by Barbara Herman, in which she says about the same thing about shocking; which intrigued me and I needed to know more. Shocking is not for the faint of heart, the honey and civet emphasize the animalistic tones and can be a bit much for everyday. The listed notes in shocking are as follows; Bergamont tarragon aldehydes Jasmine Narcissis ylang-ylang Rose honey musk sandalwood patchouli Amber cloves and civet. On initial application on my skin I don’t get much of the bergamot except for a slight citrusy note that only whispers, it’s blended very well with the herbal tones of the tarragon. Thankfully the aldehydes are pretty tame and don’t bring any sort of screechy tones to the composition. The transition from the top notes to the heart notes is very fluid it’s sort of creeps in the flowers grow very slowly up from the ground and I smell the honey more than anything else with the flowers taking a backseat. It’s slightly sweet but the Rose seems to back up the honey more than any of the other flowers, which is surprising because usually on my skin Jasmine can get quite indeholic. I really enjoy the heart notes but the base is my favorite part of the fragrance the blend of the sandalwood the musk some of the honey notes that are left over and the cloves just make it very warm and comforting, the civet doesn’t even seem to make it overly skanky, it’s is sexed up but it’s almost like laying in bed and reading the morning after an exciting evening in the bedroom. I will repeat one thing though that Barbara Herman inside and her book, it is absolutely imperative if you want to experience shocking the way that it really was that you either find it in a perfume nip or you find a completely sealed small bottle that has had no air exposure; because quite frankly of the things that you see in this post finding a pristine example is so very difficult and you can end up with some really screechy or skanky in a not nice way dud.
qtq691JeomiWogkig – :
SHOCKING
SCHIAPARELLI
GROUP: FLORAL ALDEHYDE MUSK
Notes: bergamot, tarragon aldehydes jasmine narcissus, ylang-ylang rose honey musk, sandalwood, patchouli, amber cloves civet
SILLAGE: HEAVY Radiates Within 6 Feet
LONGEVITY: VERY LONG LASTING 7 to 12 hours
REMINDS ME OF: QUELQUES FLEURS HOUBIGANT CHANEL NO 5 COLOGNE MITSOUKO GUERLAIN DIVA UNGARO
My grandmother wore Schiaparelli and it’s yet another gorgeous priceless treasure of perfumery and chemical artistry that I fell heir to when she passed away. She loved this stuff. It came out in 1937. This fragrance is very much out of it’s time. The original bottle was very ahead of it’s time. Just look at it. Doesn’t it remind you of something? Why it’s a woman’s torso shaped bottle similar to Classique by Gaultier! This is of course nothing like the softer sweeter Classique. No. This fragrance would not be called shocking if it didn’t have some shocking sillage. It certainly does. This throws out an aroma from here to next Tuesday. The fragrance opens with aldehydes which by ’37 were already established ingredients in perfumery since 1921 and the popular Chanel No. 5. The scent does have a No. 5 vibe but I find it’s even muskier and less floral. It also contains a lot of honey which was rarely used in perfumery. It could even be possible that this was the first fragrance to use a dominant honey accord. The opening also consists of a natural bergamot which freshen up the fragrance. The heart is floral with mostly rose ylang-ylang and narcissus. They are flowers in the fields type of flowery smell not a floral bouquet from a flower shop nor domestic household flowers type of scent. It’s almost like they were trying to evoke the imagery of wild flowers. It’s got tons of musk and that civet was a real life civet secretion as this fragrance was made during the Golden Age of Perfume when they tested on animals and real civet. The civet reminds me of the one in vintage musky scents like No. 5 Bal a Versailles and Diva. The patchouli is also very strong. The bottle my grandmother left for me is now mostly a civet-patchouli bomb. The flowers have wilted. This fragrance matches up with the 1939 Hollywood comedy classic THE WOMEN starring Joan Crawford Norma Shearer Rosalind Russell and Mary Boland. It’s a fragrance that Joan Crawford would have been wearing, you remember that conniving, scheming, gold digger who worked at the perfume department store and who stole Mary’s husband away from her for a time when she sold him a bottle of Summer Rain perfume. She was a b word that you can’t use outside of a kennel. This is for a grand dame a society matron very mature very elegant. The imagery that comes to mind are Hollywood stars like Gloria Swanson wearing big fur coats (civet musk coat). This is really beautiful and hard to come by. Nowadays you either have to know the person who wore it back in the 30’s or find a rare sample of it on ebay or some very hardcore vintage collector’s place. This is a fragrance for the woman who is her own boss and who has a scent of unisex musk and feminine flowers. She is the woman of the 30’s women whose dynamic skills and can do anything and everything attitude shames our sissy womanhood today. If you want to experience this classic beauty look for it on ebay. The scent should also include a lot of honey but unfortunately mine turned to musk and the honey and flowers were gone. Gorgeous fantastic perfume.
Dmitrieva-1976 – :
This was one shocking fragrance for civet and/or aldehydes intensive 30s.This perfume smelled like nothing else and this was from one of the darlings of fashion in the period.It is still different even now, loud, outrageous. Honey, cinnamon, cloves, flowers and, of course civet (but not too much).Exquisite, one of the forgotten masterpieces (and , forgotten or not,there were only very few) of that time. Huge longevity and sillage.
NestorPurikov – :
Finally found the newer version! I saw it at Harrods at the Haute parfumerie but hesitated to even ask for the price and the…surprise…I found it in a well known vintage perfume shop in the Netherlands! (the one in Haarlem). Paid 110 E for 50 ml but well worth it, a massive dose of honey. I personally like big perfumes, only one spray and all is good in the world. Obviously this one not for the office. My nose is not so sophisticated to smell animall stuff. I can tell there is something definetely warm under all that honey but doesnt smell like cat to me ˆ^hehehehe
Crocco – :
To my nose the fragrance develops right according to the pyramid described. But the fume is not shocking. The honey note strongly remided me the smell of propolis. Something from childhood. Nice to have it in the collection but for me personally a bit weird to have it for daily use.
Dim37x – :
What are you supposed to expect with a name like “Shocking”? I smell civet, honey, ylang-ylang, jasmine, aldehydes and cloves. To me its just not that shocking of a scent for a vintage perfume of its era. But wait….half an hour later this got interesting because it became smokey in a dark and sexy way and I now smell aldehydes, tarragon, patchouli, sandalwood, and civet, with honey and yang-ylang in the background. Was that the shocker? Wow, very sophisticated and sexy.
xxxARTEMxxx – :
Review of vintage edp, pre-1962, as there is no zip code.
Honeyed honey, spice, subtle herbal greens…a hit of funky civet. In the heart rose makes an appearance, warm narcissus, a touch of bergamot. Honey remains as a strong support for the floral notes, and spice is clearly present throughout. The dry down is primarily honey, rose, and spice on my skin.
I consider this a ravishing summer evening scent, but the spice is present enough to make it suitable for evening in fall and winter as well. DD is a touch heavy, to my mind, for spring.
Warm, a little badly behaved, playful, quite sweet. This is one for the collection. I do find that it is a scent for blowing off steam, dancing wildly, celebrating, rather than for the quiet candle lit dinner.
HUGE scent envelope- apply lightly!
werty – :
I had “stocked” up on this vintage fragrance a while ago – something I do, since some disappear. Well!
I was scuttling around in my closet and remembered I had this. Sprayed some on – oh yes. Honeyed, sweet but not cloying, inviting you to smell again.
Definitely vintage
“Same place…same perfume??” Chandler had it down.
vаdos – :
I found a mini for .50 at a thrift store, date unknown, though I’m leaning towards the 40’s. It is lovely, opening in a blast of aldehydes, bergamot and Jasmine-led florals, which sink into honey, spiked with spicy incense, all of which is supported by an animalic, civety base. There are brief moments when tarragon sneaks in, giving it a bit of a dirty laundry smell, which disappears quickly enough that I don’t mind, it just reminds me I’m wearing it. It’s a strong perfume, one that you should wear only for yourself.
nea892bedyWelty – :
For now only a few words about the newest version ,the one in torso bottle (pics:3,4,5 in the row).On my skin it is v v similar to Habanita edp.It is different from the previous versions,but has a quality of its own .It is quite heavy and longlasting.The honey note is predominant in this version that I’ve just found out it’s from 1998 , a ‘vintage’ 🙂
We live in times where perfumes from 10 years back are already vintage , even after 1-2 years sometimes :))))))
What a caroussel …….hope we won’t get dizzy in our struggels….:-)))))))
To be continued ! As it is one of my faves ,will come back with more info.
oleg-football – :
I recently came across a vintage sample of Shocking Schiaparelli by Elsa Schiaparelli, a fragrance developed in 1937. I have no idea what year my sample vial is from, but it is older. Here are my thoughts on Shocking.
Initially, I believed this to be a beautiful perfume. After wearing it for hours, I still believe it would be considered beautiful by some, but others would have a problem with a fragrance such as this. Let me explain. It’s thick, rich and grand without a doubt. Civet comes to the forefront with a heavy dose of musk.
Skanky? Yes. Shocking? Nah. Just in the sense of smelling of well, not necessarily sexy, but sexed. And there is a difference in those words. Some use the word “naughty” in their description, but that just sounds so tame to me. Shocking is an animalistic perfume that serves its purpose for certain occasions and those personalities that can pull it off.
It’s strong, a little goes a long way. I can only imagine how too much would clear a room. This is a perfume that needs to only be dabbed. It’s not an office perfume.
Shocking continues on a linear road for me, never really riding any waves or changing mid-course. I can see its’ appeal for vintage lovers and it’s a definite try for history perfume buffs. I’m happy for the opportunity to have sampled this perfume.
Xeroxzldof – :
This review is based on a decant of vintage EdC. On my skin and to my nose, it’s very similar to vintage Bal a Versailles (EdC). Projection and longevity are good on my skin. All in all, it’s one of the best classic animalic floriental together with Habanita, Toujours Moi, Tabu and BaV.
kov4eg – :
As a point of reference I have to declare I’m not adverse to a little skank in my fragrances, regularly wearing both Muscs Koublai Khan and Le Labo’s Oud. So far I have tried three different formulations of this perfume. By far the worst is the seventies reincarnation with an initial civet blast which is rapidly drowned by sickening raspberry and sweet, heady florals. Not even the honey can break through this mess. This fragrance is linear and just yuk. I’ve tried it several times and it just doesn’t get any better, with people around me noticeably wrinkling there noses.
The 30’s – 40’s version is divine! Gorgeous civet weaving in and out of heavy, thick, rich, languid honey. Aldehydes sparkling to the left and right. Tarragon bursting through in bubbles and bergamot discreetly supporting. It is just glorious. My favourite fragrance in such a long time. As it wears it changes subtly, but noticeably, with other notes peeking through, but always that civet/honey bomb which increases in waxiness and animalia as it persists. This stuff is powerful, with incredible longevity and projection. I am in love!
The 90’s re formulation tries hard to capture the essence of the original, but the civet seems synthetic and bland and the honey is sweeter, never matching the depth of the original. However the aldehydes still play a strong, lush role and the tarragon is much more noticeable and curious, kind of disarming and a little incongruous. At a push it will do – but nothing will ever lure me like the original formulation. It’s addictive! It’s worth saving for this alone! Look out for the darkest versions – coffee or cola coloured. They’re the best – if you can get hold of them.
Кооостя – :
Adore this perfume, first wore it as a young girl in 1963, hope that it will be relaunched now that Schiaparelli is now back! It is big and shocking just like its namesake, her fashion sense was so far ahead of her time that she lives on as one of the most remarkable talents of the last century in my mind.
knippidereopy – :
Nothing shocking about this. The civet only serves to make it “vintage-y” and temper the honey. This is heavenly. It rides that fence of being sweet and innocent but with an animalistic undercurrent that hints at naughtiness. Wearing this is like a bit of lacy slip or bra peeking out of your otherwise conservative outfit. People think “Well…does she or doesn’t she?” The drydown is a sweet incense. This is big enough on character that the bottle being shaped after Mae West’s curves is just the cherry on top. This isn’t shocking, it’s a great example of civet not being scary. It also proves that perfumes from the 1930s can hold their own against today’s fruity little candy bombs being sold at Victoria’s Secret. The only thing sexy about most of those is the word “sexy” somewhere on the label.
klimentiy – :
I tested Shocking from a sealed nip from the 50’s.
I must say, this is one of the strongest perfumes I’ve ever had on my skin. I love big, strong, sillage-bombs – and Shocking was no exception – but it was SO strong that even *I* considered cracking a window to air out my bedroom.
The opening is definitely a muggy, intensely animalic scent, which I adore. There was something in it, however, that reminded me of frankincense resin. A very subtle dryness hidden under all that humid civet and honey, a very subtle incense note. I loved it, and it worked with the listed notes so, so well. A glorious scent.
After the initial fumigation opening, Shocking does indeed settle down enough to go out into the world, which I did. I was worried that the honey would be the dominant note, as I don’t particularly care for smelling so sweet, but instead, I was enveloped in a sweet-but-not-too-sweet cloud of mature, sexy, animalism. In the dry phase, Shocking has a split personality – up close to my skin, she’s sweet and warm and lightly musky, but her sillage smells strongly of another note that she supposedly doesn’t have – vetiver.
Overall, Shocking did not disappoint me in the least. She is a fascinating, magical perfume with many layers and tons of personality. I have a few more sealed nips to enjoy, and then I will be very sad. I’ll save them for extremely special occasions.
Studentik55 – :
In the “notes according to your vote” the top notes are pretty much nonexistent.
You know what’s interesting about trying it from a sealed nip instead of a vintage bottle? I totally smell the bergamot.
Civet and musk are front and center, lending a certain “muggy” feeling to the scent. However, it does not smell at all like my late ex-mother-in-law’s smelly mink coat. It’s not nearly as down and dirty as that thing.
It’s smooth, with an overlay of jasmine and bergamot. I’m sorry I don’t smell the honey at all. Perhaps that’s because I spent last week alternating between two honey bombs (Xerjoff Mamluk and By Kilian Back to Black) and there’s no honey here by comparison.
I’m not wildly in love with Shocking on ME, because I haven’t gotten entirely past the aunties-and- grandmothers scent memories. But I haven’t showered it off yet. I’m generally not very tolerant, so that says a lot.
romka2d – :
A big cloud of civet and honey. Maybe not a scent you use when you are sitting on a crowded bus.
I think the drydown is quite nice, the scent is close to Joop Femme in my opinion, but it feels slightly more “animalistic” I use it very rarely because you have to wait out the smell so long before it has softened, and I cannot find many occasions I can use it, unfortunately.
I like it in some inexplicable way, and it has my respect because it feels well made.
zxcasd – :
Thanks to dear mpbrown I was able to try this legendary perfume
Do not know where to start describing what I feel about Shocking.
Its definitely one – of a kind. At least it’s the only one perfume which literally transfers you into forgotten areas of your subconscious
I got memories of things I didn’t remember for a long time, my mum with her (young at those days sisters) my aunties, their silky dresses and stockings with suspender belts, hair in hot rollers…All that noise and laugh and jokes of women when they are “getting ready”…helping each other, getting nervous at wedding time, big birthday parties..
Shocking is a story-teller..It whispers into your ear, it shows you pictures as Ole-luk-oie, it makes you believe in your own power of feminity.
I love every bit of it composition wise. Civet is so sexy in it covered by honey-rosy-musky coat, like someone put it on your shoulders so delicately, so sensually.
Ylang-ylang is so softened by jasmine and narcissus, – and harmony of amber and tarragon at the end. There is no naiveness in this fragrance and there is no pushiness at the same time. Its sexuality paired with the wisdom, for open-minded women with big heart.
Hauntingly beautiful and absolutely surreal. Something that I “must-have” now.
rust72 – :
I ordered a sample of this to satisfy my curiosity. Big mistake – I adore it and it’s almost impossible to get! There was something very familiar about it – I would say it’s from a similar family to Dana Tabu but it’s softer. I can see why both of these perfumes were favourites of Frida Khalo. Oh well, guess I’ll just have to be satisfied with my Tabu. Easy come, easy go…
andryha – :
It depends on the bottle, I’m afraid. Generous perfume fairies have sprinkled me from two different sources. One was all aldehydes and white noise (to put it diplomatically),