I agree with the majority of the reviews here. Coco noir is... well, nothing to rave about. Doesn't really remind me of mademoiselle which is too sharp on me but not Coco either. I get mostly fairly linear short leaved faint citrucy patchouli. Not bad, not difficult to pull of, just unmemorable.
I have to admit a darker version of Coco must be very challenging. But if this is the concept then it's not succeeded at all. I almost feel sad for Jacques Polge.
After all, Chanel is notorious for the high quality bold perfumes. And Coco Noir does not belong among them. The only thing I found stunning is the -beyond chic- bottle. But that makes it even more sad...
oldish perfume for my test. fits women at their 50+.
the smell is nice, not too heavy. sexy or dark, definitely not noir, frankly i dont understand why it is called noir.
I don't like any of the Chanel perfumes - too strong - until now. I tried it in the airport and kind of liked it. LOVE the bottle. I use three spritzes - one on each arm and one on the neck. The smell is warm and a bit sweet. I don't get any specific notes apart from maybe roses? Definitely a fall/winter scent. Doesn't get a lot of love here on MUA, though...
Echoing comments below .. Banal, insipid. I smell uninteresting, unoriginal and ubiquitous in this fragrance. Ain't a noirism in smell here whatsoever. But mass market appeal of the Brand and the relatively artful creations of its predecessor namesakes are sure to bring success and profit to the shareholders. But I don't believe there's much to sing about, save for the sophisticated signature Chanel packaging. Real shame.
I was eager to try Coco Noir, it is basically a modern version of Coco, easier to wear, more likable, more quiet also.the dry down is my favorite part, yet this isn't for me. I am not a fan of Coco, too classic, nor Coco Mademoiselle, heavy and sharp.
It still has the elegant edge of a French classic, and with please the Chanel fans who are looking for a lighter and more casual scent.
It isn't bright nor cheerful, I just don't feel real pretty wearing it!!!
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!