I think this perfume is extremely happy. Its a loud and giggling, pink dressed girl. I like it very much. I bought this because it makes me think of London, which is a place I miss very much. Its funny to put these two ideas above together about this perfume, for they seem to be contradictory, but if you think of the girl as someone who was a girl 150 years ago, maybe you will understand me.
It may be a soapy and simple fragrance, but to me it evokes perfection. I just dont wear it too often for Im a person that rarely feels that happy, so I think its too different from my personality.
On me this one is a fairly plain rose scent with tart notes. I wish I got more of the notes listed, but it was fairly unexciting. Easy to wear, anyway.
I won't repeat what others have already said in their reviews (scent profile, notes, etc.), and instead will go straight to what I really think about Roses de Chloe: There is something nostalgic-soapy about this scent.
Yes, there is a beautiful rose note here. However, the perfume overall reminds me of bath and fragranced products from the more "romantic" times, during the Victorian Revival period -- think 1970s and 1980s Gunne Sax dresses, Coty's "Laces" and "L'Effleur" perfumes, Avon's "Pearls & Lace" perfume, Camay soap with the Victorian motif on the wrapper, etc. While Roses de Chloe does not smell like the aforementioned products, it runs in the same "spirit" and has the same "vibe."
Chloe Roses isn't what I would call modern, but it's not old-fashioned either; it's just...kind of retro, for the lack of a better word.
While it is a pretty scent, I find it underwhelming and lacking in personality. I am giving this 3 stars because while it does smell pretty, the lasting power is very poor. Speaking of "pretty," who wants to smell pretty when they can find a perfume that makes them smell beautiful, exciting, vivacious, etc.? "Pretty" can be forgettable and generic, like Roses de Chloe.
This is a very clean, soapy,fresh rose. It is a true rose with some white musk. I tend to wear this on hotter days and when I want a subtle rose that won't have a lot of spillage. For cooler days and for nights I prefer Stella. Packaging is gorgeous, lasting power is moderate, and price is high but worth it. Will repurchase.
Roses de Chloe is one of those rare finds. I came upon it by accident when a SA introduced me to Chloe and then the roses version which was instant love. After sampling massive fragrances that are either too sweet, musky, fruity, chemical-like, there is an appreciation for Roses de Chloe's pureness with nothing but roses as the top note. This Chloe perfume managed to capture the delicate true scent of the rose as you would experience it when holding it and leaning in to take a whiff. It is fresh, subtle and it opens up to a lovely vivid soft rose garden on a sunny day which invokes the senses and exudes a feeling of happiness, elegance and beauty. Less is more as I find one spray from the 75ml bottle lasts the entire day by providing a periodic hint-of-rose presence. This scent is luxurious and precious . . . like embodying the spirit of a rose in a bottle. Priceless.
I love this perfume, it smells like juicy roses. If you have smelled the 'regular' Chloe fragrance, this is like they plopped a bunch of roses on top of it, so it has that same green element to it. A very up front, uncomplicated, fresh and direct rose scent.
I have never smelled a perfume that smelled more like actual roses than this scent. I can practically hear bees when I smell this. Seriously, straight up roses. It's supposed to have notes of white musk and amber (which I LOVE) but all I can smell is roses. It's subtle though, not overpowering at all. Love the bottle.
If you are into roses this is the perfume you should definitely look into. It's just that - scent of freshly cut roses. Nothing more, nothing less. I absolutely love the scent but it's very basic, so I don't know if it's worth the price. I previously owned the limited edition of Lancome 2001 Roses and that was the bomb for us, the rose lovers. Unfortunately the Chloe EDT runs short of that. It's lovely, mind you, but very very basic. If you are looking for a cheaper version, you might want to check out the Yves Rocher's rose fraiche EDT. In my opinion it's very similar but more straight forward and even more generic, yet the price is much more affordable. I own both but do prefer Chloe since it's less "into your face". Staying power leaves much to be desired. The bottle is cute thought :)
If you want a rose fragrance this is a good choice. It smells like real roses - nothing synthetic smelling going on here. It takes me back to the 70s when I was very young and all my friends wore Tea Rose. It's very linear. If you like what you smell 2 minutes in then you will be happy with this because it doesn't develop into much else. All in all, it is a good rose fragrance for anyone seeking one.
I got this as a sample and will probably not buy it when I run out only because rose fragrances are not my thing.
I think this is one of the better rose fragrances on the market today. I have smelled some rose fragrances (eg. Balenciaga Rosabotanica) that- to me- don't even smell like rose! (Even my husband agreed with me on that one.) Chloe Roses de Chloe smells like a clean scent; and you will definitely catch a whiff of rose at random times throughout the day while you are wearing this. If you like roses, this is truly lovely! I am a sucker for florals, and rose is at the top of my list. The only scent that I know of that comes close to Chloe RdC is Cartier's Eau de Cartier Goutte de Rose. I own both, and from my experience, Chloe edges out Cartier by a nose. I find Chloe's rose fragrance to be slightly stronger- but not "stronger" in a harsh way- but stronger in that clean, long-lasting, rosy, "I-got-my-money's-worth" kind of way.