Mind-bogglingly banal. Average, non-descript, half-heared, sad.
There is nothing in this perfume that stands out, nothing dark or enigmatic or special about it at all.
To make matters worse, it conforms to the latest Chanel trend in creating perfumes that evaporate and disappear off the skin within 2-3 hours.
The only possible explanation for someone buying a bottle of this is because it's Chanel and is therefore felt to be shorthand for elegance and sophistication. The bottle is sexy, and I';m sure there are women out there who feel sexy simply knowing that they are wearing Chanel, in whatever form.
Give this one a miss. An utter rip-off, and one of the most insipid fragrances to be recently released.
Everyone has said it already, noir this is not. At first on my skin, it is a clash of mademoiselle and chance. Then as it dries down, it turns to a light mademoiselle baby powder. With a black bottle I was expecting a big hitter like Black Orchid. Sadly this fragrance works for neither my skin nor nose.
There's a troubling trend of 'Noir' and 'Nuit' fragrances that are 'nah' and 'ennui'.
At first Coco Noir EdP smells strongly of berries and patchouli, but a light, weak-willed patchouli. This must be a trend, because La Vie Est Belle by Lancome also has this and lots of sweetness.
Then the scent appears to go nowhere. It's a monotonous drone: top, middle and base are identically pitched. I understand the comparisons to Coco-M and, at first, pretty much went with the theory that this is really a Coco-M flanker. But there's something in the dry down that's similar to the dry down of Coco EdP, but with a lot more 'candy' -- or berries. I don't see how a scent that leaves out the prominent spice and floral notes of the original and adds fruit and sugar (notes not typically associated with 'darker', headier, sexier versions - as the name Coco Noir suggests) can be described as 'noir'. Even the patchouli is cleaned up, and the rather generic sweetness overplayed. Sugar should, at best, be a bit player. Or really skilled, original and sexy if the role is a big one from a big, expensive brand. This is a very average sweetness. Seems to me they were counting on a fleeting resemblance to Coco original's dry down (it's definitely there) *and* a memory of the sweetness in Coco-M, to carry a new flanker that's ultimately not as good as either predecessor.
Back to the comparison with Coco-M EdP (older version). Between the two, Coco-M is the statement maker, not Coco Noir. I understand why Coco-M's ubiquity makes it a difficult one for perfumistas, however there's enough in it to make an entrance. The lovely citrus (maybe bergamot, grapefruit?) top notes last well into the scent, and the slightly rough / dirty patchouli gives it an edge. The florals are kind of lost in the haze, but the sweetness and any pedestrian feel is toned down because the top and base work so well together. It's not an overkill sweetness -- certainly not compared to this new wave of base-light, sugar-heavy mass market (and now Chanel) releases. Coco-M's dry down has a mild chypre bite that is missing in Coco Noir. Noir dries down too sweet for a patchouli scent or a 'noir' scent. I'd go as far to say that Coco Noir is the perfume that Kiera Knightley should represent, because Kate Moss, with all her imperfections, was a better Coco-M girl.
The only reason Coco-M is 'common' is because of its huge popularity. Any similarities between this and Coco Noir are deliberate: they wanted the market success of Coco-M with the classic status of Coco. Chanel try to deliver a scent they hope will appeal to lovers of Coco original -- and Mademoiselle fangirls. I'm not sure it's suited to either group because it's not even a darker version of Mademoiselle. For this I'd take a step sideways and try another flanker, the unloved Allure Sensuelle (well, sort of...).
Ultimately-- the sugar and fruit, although well-handled and infinitely better than in a thousand other modern sweet scents on the market, are too strong in Coco Noir and the patchouli is...well, it's like a mid-note and not a base note. Does that make sense? The passing resemblance to Coco original merely makes me crave Coco original.
The resemblance to Mademoiselle reminds me of how much better the notes are differentiated in that one. It's like resorting to Lindt milk chocolate because the supermarket sold out of Green & Blacks 70%. Lindt's good quality, but it isn't my favourite. And milk isn't dark etc..
On the upside because of the passing similarity to both, and whatever signature Chanel formulas use, it smells expensive and classy enough. It smells 'Young-Chanel' -- although (for me) hardly a shining example of the house's talent.
This is too youth-oriented for me.
I'm disappointed; I assumed I'd really like this one based on several reviews. For me, it's not special at all. Also, I don't get anything 'vague' or 'fruity'....on me (and i'm basing it on its reaction to my skin) it just seemed like a terrible terrible version of N. 5, which I don't like anyway. I like Coco and Coco M....unfortunately this one didn't do me any favors.
this may not be all noir or so close to coco mademos. and coco...but since coco is old fashioned on my skin and coco mademos. has a undetone that reeks sometimes.....this is perfect...elegant, soft , layered nice and pretty....i really like this on my skin...out of all 3 my bf liked this the most on my skin . some ppl's chemistry just dont fit this, so they might not like it...i do!
I expect Coco Noir to be bold and spicy however when I sprayed this onto my skin it is rather mild and soft. I like the smell but however it doesnt last that long on my skin (3 hours max). I think maybe the NOIR made me think its going to be a strong perfume. Dont get me wrong, the smell is pleasant but if they call it Skinny Coco then I wont expect too much from Coco Noir. Its just too mild in my humble opinion and I dont think the sillage is good either.
In terms of the smell, the dry down to me is a very soft sweet patchouli which I think is unique because most patchouli based I have come across are just strong. So i think the 'strength' or the selling point ( if you may) of this perfume is the soft and sweet patchouli. A clever blend I must say.
talk about stages!
whiff of strong men's cologne ~ pleasant, but def masculine.
flowerbomb meets coco mademoiselle.
angel peeks in, with a grapefruit top.
grapefruit top softens and sweetens a hair.
soft leather (like bottega veneta) comes in.
drydown is coco light (Coco light, not coco mlle).
put it on before bed, and woke up to strong vetiver, nothing more.
i wouldn't buy it, and i wouldn't wear it often if i had it, but i do like it.
these stages were very distinct, and the first whiff to drydown was around 30 minutes on me.
also, i never care if something is "generic" or not; i like many of those. but *this* ~ to me ~ did not warrant the price tag. at all.
i'd buy coco, coco mlle, flowerbomb, bottega, angel, a men's cologne, or velvet rope before i'd buy this.
it's weird, though, because i still say i like it. :)
Coco Noir is a beautiful fragrance, and I feel sure it will be a classic. If I could make any changes, it would be to increase the spiciness and decrease the grapefruit note. I would like it to lean a bit more to the original Coco and a bit less to the Coco Mademoiselle. I think it is suitable for either day or night, and if used in appropriate quantities it could be worn for any occasion--perhaps sprayed very lightly for a work environment & more lavishly for an evening out. It has good lasting power for me. I enjoy the layers as they develop. I enjoy keeping it on my vanity as a frequent choice as a scent of the day.
I have always loved and worn Chanel Coco and I do own Coco Mademoiselle but on a kind of basis of sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't (worn for day wear) as there is a background scent that I am not that comfortable with on me. Was looking forward so much to Coco Noir, being dark and heady etc. Had read lots of negative reviews and was sorry to read it seemed more Coco M, than Coco. Managed to get a tester, sprayed it and first thought was Coco M, but then as the day wore on and all day the next day, I could not stop sniffing my wrists and decided I loved it once the layers started taking effect (also how different a perfume can smell in the morning to later in the day!)...but not as much as Coco. Next day was 'release' day so I got it, so I could really see what I thought and I agree with those who say its inbetween the two, it does have layers and the lower layer is, for me the best. I have decided I love it (Coco will always be favourite though). Getting over the fact I would have liked it more 'dark' like Coco, I will be buying it again as a few days on I still adore it! My only bug bear is that, as others have mentioned, it simply doesnt last long enough and you need to reapply whereas with Coco you do not, as it lingers...
I would just like to add, that over a month on, I am completely besotted by Coco Noir and have worn it all the time since my last posting, I really like the perspective added by LavndarSky - that Mademoiselle loved black. Different friends have tried mine and most have been very positive about it - even those who, like me are dedicated to Chanel Coco. Still, we are all aware different perfumes are different on different skins - for me, I love and will continue with it indefinitely, as with Coco.
I was very excited about this perfume as I love Chanel perfumes, especially the Coco line. To me this starts out more like Mademoiselle and then actually morphs more into No5 than the original Coco. It is a nice, fresh smell but nothing interesting and the lasting power is next to nothing. It is like a mist but even Chanel mists usually have more power than actual EDP's from other brands. Not horrible just horribly disappointing. One for the ebay pile, stick to Coco or Coco Mademoiselle.