I like the idea of wearing this fabled and famous perfume more than actually wearing it. I’m sure the thought of smelling synthetic and wearing a fragrance that doesn’t invoke any identifiable notes in the 1920’s probably seemed exciting and modern. But a lot of time has passed since then and this just doesn’t smell modern anymore. When sniffing the nozzle and my skin this just smells like sour baby powder. continued >>

I wonder if the reviews saying this fragrance smells 'old-woman' or 'old-fashioned' would say the same thing if the perfume had a different name and the reviewers didn't know this was a 1920's fragrance? Because to me it's surprisingly modern and well rounded. There's no way you could put this pefume in the 'musty' catagory with the Guerlain blends like Mitsouko and Jicky which really do seem quite ancient, and far too strong for the modern nose.

No 5 is sublime. If '1' was a sickly sweet floral, and '10' a champagne dry grassy chypre, No 5 would score a perfect '5', dead centre, so well is it balanced.

On first examination it can be quite dry and grassy - sometimes the fragrance even seems to split into different notes. But the drydown is a lovely vanilla-amber balance of perfect pitch. No wonder this is the worlds number one fragrance.

I wore Chanel no5 when I was a teenager - I fancied myself artistic and elegant, really I was just pretentious and trying to be "grown up" before I was ready. Even though I wore it for a couple of years, I never really liked it - I just liked the idea of wearing a classic. I've tried it a few times again recently, hoping my nose has matured, hoping that maybe this time I'll finally understand what the hype is about, and every time I'm disappointed. On me it is always synthetic, metallic, jarring, cold, sour and masculine, all qualities I detest. The other chanels I've tried are the same on me, which leads me to suspect it may be a body chemistry issue. Chanels and I just do not get along. :-(

I totally agree with the assessment of "fancy baby powder." It just doesn't work with my body chemistry at all. I have had a bottle for years, but will give it finally to a friend of mine...

This is a classic fragrance par excellance. Woody and discreet, a "no nonsense" fragrance. I personaly have never *loved* it so much, but I've never got so many compliments on any other fragrance. My DH likes it a lot. I used to got it as a gift from my parents, husband, friends etc. when I was younger, so I wore it then: didn't love it but I appreciated its secret charm and chic. Now they all know that I don't love it so much, so they stopped buying it for me and I wouldn't be buying it myself any more, as I have some other favourites. But if you are a right woman for it this is a fantastic fragrance. Oh, and the packaging: unbeated, gorgeous, simple and elagant. The other big plus: wonderful body range.

My tip top ab-fab favorite scent of all time. I can't believe only 62% would buy it again. Heresy!

I like the classic bottle; I hate the scent. It is the first, but I do not think this evokes "woman" by any means. Who said a woman had to smell like fancy baby powder. Regardless of its history, it still smells like "old posh lady" in black suits, pearls, a wig and her red leather handbag. To use Nicole Kidman for the ads is a mismatch. She is too delicate for this scent. Someone like AISHWARYA RAI would be suitable to pull off this scent as its spokesmodel or another dark-haired creamy-skinned vixen.

One of my favorites, classical and feminine. The only draw back is the ezpense, but however there are not many fragrances that smell nicer than this.

There are some very harsh reviews below about No5. And I really can't understand that. This is an amazing, classic, elegant, feminine fragrance. There is nothing foul about this scent at all. Women of all ages can pull this off. It's soft, floral and a little powdery. Good for day and evening. It is just PERFECT.

There has been enough description of this so I won't bore you with more. I'm very picky with my perfumes, so the fact that this gets full marks from me means a lot in my book. No5 is made a memorable classic for me in part because of the fantastic packaging, which really is CLASSIC in every sense of the word. There are few others places in 20th century advertising that a black and white logo has been used to such effect. The bottle is so sleek and timeless too. In the beginning (ten or so years ago) I took a while to warm to this, but once I did there has been no looking back. Its in my top five scents, if not my top two. It really never fails, all occasions, all year round. I know Chanel No 5 a mile off, in a room of a hundred different scents. Its floral lightness is cuddled by a powderiness that keeps it from being harsh, despite the hit of aldehydes that make it like a drink of the very best champagne. I recently tried Yvresse by YSL which is also named Champagne and because I like No 5's champagne quality I tried Yvresse. However this was so sweet and cloying I found myself longing for the real deal, Chanel No5. I went and got a new bottle of No5 immediately. Nuff said.