This scent is heady, over the top, gorgeous. The initial spray is a blast of inexpressible and effervescent joy. The dry down is a bit more demure but nevertheless a very splashy yet comforting bouquet of flowers. I do not feel this is a starkly brash perfume as some imply, but instead a buxomy starlet, full vitality and ultlra feminine allure. This is a big perfume but even a shy person could wear it with careful application. Rose, jasmine, and iris predominate. An exquisite, glamorous fragrance, with the added appeal that it is relatively inexpensive but feels expensive and refined. A modern classic.
Before writing this review, I mistook Fleur de Rocaille (1993) for FleurS de Rocaille (1933) by Caron. After some research, I realized that Iíve yet to sniff the 1933 fragrance and based on the note descriptions, the two fragrances differ quite a bit. Here are is my impression of Fleur de Rocaille:
The opening is loaded with sweet floral and a touch of aldehydes. For flowers, Iím picking up lilac and maybe jasmine, but the effect is simultaneously muted and abrasive; this is a jagged, airbrushed bouquet found on greeting cards from the 1990s. The aldehydes are not very pronounced, but there is something nauseating lurking in the composition that reminds me of hairspray. Development on the skin is linear, so in this case, time isnít a problem solver. In spite of my disappointment, I still want to try FleurS de Rocaille; hopefully, I will not mistake this one for hair product.
As mentioned, Fleur de Rocaille is meant to be a modern interpretation of
Fleurs de Rocaille. I associate this perfume with scented detergent or dryer sheets I detest.
This review is for vintage Fleurs (not "Fleur") de Rocaille pure parfum (extrait) My goodness, did I get a bad sample? I had high hopes F de R would be a sweet, old-fashioned floral. Since I adore both Caron's delicate beauties Muguet du Bonheur and the vintage version of Bellodgia, and given F de R's reputation as a 50's "nice girl" fragrance, I was not expecting this. It is more a woody fragrance than a floral on me. It is very well composed, but it leans heavily to the woody, ambery side, though the rose and lily of the valley are there enough to proclaim it as feminine. I feel the woods drown out the delicate floral bouquet. Also, there is a note in this one that bothers me. It's something like the tuberose note of today's Juicy Couture (the orginal first one) that smells like sweat. This reminds me of Dana's Tabu. I wouldn't describe this as "pretty". Quality in this one, yes absolutely--but not my cup of tea. This is the vintage version; now I am awaiting a sample of the modern and will update when received. Unless Rocaille is a forest, the name is very misleading. :-) Update: I have received a vintage bottle of "Fleurs" de Rocaille cologne parfumee. What a tremendous difference the form of perfume makes, especially with the Caron brand! I get much more floral rather than wood from this, as other reviewers have noted. I get a strong aldehydic floral here along the lines of Chanel. I still cannot pick out the individual florals. AND I also have here a brand spanking new sample of Fleur (singular) de Rocaille. I cannot tell a huge difference. Don't stone me perfumistas, maybe my nose is worn out. It is still an aldehydic floral, not terribly far from Chanel. Nothing groundbreaking, A little old fashioned.
I am not a fan. I opened it and smelled crisp apple. Not "apples" mind you. Apple. I put it on the back of my hand and from the moment I smelled it, I knew it wasn't for me. Smelled like fake flowers. So synthetic. Not impressed at all. I won't purchase.
This is my newly found love. Fleur de Rocaille is one of the most feminine fragrances I've ever experienced. I cannot help but feel my spirit lift; my body feel refreshed and my mind cleared while wearing this gorgeous fragrance. Fleur de Rocaille is delicate yet noticeable. Unlike other florals, that are a parade of tuberose or jasmine, FdR is balanced harmony. No notes stand out, shout, or dance about calling attention to the crowd. It's a beautiful melange of spring freshness in a really heavy glass embossed bottle that feels great in the hand. Uber-ladylike without having the 'old lady' wool blanket effect, FdR''s balance makes it unique and certainly worth trying. Fragrance lasted about 4 hours on my skin which is what I like, as I can reapply or choose another fragrance without having a trace of another perfumee on my skin. FdR is giftable, FBW and dare I even mention -- if you like florals.. this is quite possibly one of the safest 'unsniffed' purchases you could make. Sample sample... and fall in love.
Fleur de Rocaille (i.e. the newer version) is a bright floral, brighter
and greener than the vintage Fleurs version. Still a must to try
if you like tuberose, carnation and jasmine.
I like this a lot for a while, but for some reason I cannot fathom, this has started to make me terribly nauseous when I wear it. Agh!
First things first....the official notes are: violet, lilac, lily of the valley, gardenia, iris, rose, jasmine, ylang-ylang, mimosa, sandalwood, cedar, amber. On me, Fleur de Rocaille opens as a lovely rose scent. This rose is quite fresh but not a bit green or sharp, because iris and violet have taken the edge off. It's a very nice beginning! The rose fades gradually and gives other notes a chance to bloom. I enjoy the way that many of the different flowers stand out a bit at different times as the perfume develops and runs its course. Lily of the Valley comes on strong for awhile but--as with the rose--no green edges. Jasmine and gardenia appear, but they are muted and subtle. Lilac has its faintly detectable moments. The softening presence of violets, iris, and mimosa remains important throughout the life of the fragrance but they never turn powdery. On me, the final drydown is a slightly tangy iris/amber. Fleur de Rocaille is not a heavy-hitter. It's a quiet perfume, a blend of softly glowing flowers that stays close to the skin. As others have pointed out, it's not incredibly original. It doesn't have an unpredictably quirky note to get your attention or for juxtaposition. But I ask: Does a well-tended, healthy garden in bloom need to be brilliantly original in its design for you to be able to enjoy it?
Despite the fact that this was updated in 1993, 'Fleur de Rocaille' still seems rather old-fashioned, and not in an especially good way. It's a little too brisk and crisp, and puts me in mind of someone trying too hard to make a good first impression. It's a well-blended floral-aldehyde combination, plenty of jasmine, lilac and violet, lush, feminine, no doubt about that, but I couldn't detect any real depth along the way. The original 'Fleurs' from 1933 contains musk and is a much more interesting character. Take me back to the 'good' old days!