I don't know what to do about this fragrance. I guess I'm neutral, but secretly I harbor a closeted love for it. When I first tried it on, there were some lovely notes coming through an unpleasant haze of something resembling a stainless steel pan soaking in dishwater: metallic, dirty-wet; not chemical-smelling like a Clinique fragrance, but just not quite right. But that wore off and left just the lovely notes. The problem was, once I could smell the pleasant notes, I found the fragrance neither sexy nor deceptively innocent, just nice. While it is pretty and feminine, I couldn't help wondering how the most desirable woman in history, Marilyn Monroe, could be knockout sexy while smelling kind of like someone's grandma. Have tastes changed that much? When the mature women who still wear this now were once young, was this considered sexy, coy, demure? So I enjoyed the scent, but I kind of thought it wasn't terribly exciting or anything. But then after wearing it for a couple more hours, I started really liking it. Gradually it wore off, and I was smelling magazine inserts and I found myself saying, it's OK, but here's how it's not No. 5. What? So, I'll just have to try this again another day and make a second review, because this fragrance is some kind of enigma. How does my brain tell me it's a "mature" scent that is pretty but not what I am looking for, while my nose is meanwhile becoming secretly addicted to it?
Incidentally, I just wanted to comment on two previous reviews- one gal found it comical that people said you have to have just the right chemistry to wear this, but why is that so funny? It's common knowledge that many fragrances smell wonderful on some and terrible on others. Why should Chanel No. 5, which is based on aldehydes, substances known to be fickle from person to person, be any different? Second, I get that the gal who called this a chypre meant well, and the one who said it's not a floral assumed that an aldehyde blend cannot be considered a floral, but this fragrance is classified in various places, by fragrance experts, as an an aldehydic floral, an aldehydic soft floral, and a Soft Floral Classical Bouquet. So no one is going to convince me that this can't be called a floral. As for the chypre thing, if someone can quote an expert who says it's a chypre, I guess I would believe it, but everything I have read suggets that a chypre is a mossy woods, often unisex, and that a women's chypre could easily pass for a modern men's scent. I don't think anybody with a sense of smell would mistake No. 5 for a men's fragrance in the modern sense, ergo, I don't get how it could be a chypre. If Coco Chanel *really* didn't intend this perfume to be flowery, then the fact that fragrance experts classify it as a soft floral would mean that she failed to have it be the way she intended, and I certainly don't think that is the case. I think she used aldehydes so that instead of smelling like flowers, the fragrance would be an impression of florals that results in a woman smelling like a woman- just like the legends say. As one reviewer explained it, individual notes aren't as prominent in No. 5 as an overall scent experience. Unfortunately, as pretty as this scent is, it might feel dated and no longer sexy in a new fragrance universe.
Nothing but hype.
If it was a Coty it wouldn't be so popular. I love the reviews that talk about being one of the chosen few, or woman enough to wear it "correctly" Pretty good comedy there.
I don't understand what is so appealing about this product - but everyone has their own opinion...Personally I couldn't stand the smell of this fragrance. Hmm
I love fragrance more than anything else. I love many of the classics and lots of the new fragrances as well. Coco Mlle is one of my faves.
Chanel No. 5 is one of those scents that must choose to like you, not the other way around. I am one of the lucky ones. This one seems to disagree with different people's chemistry on a frequent basis yet it has been around for so long!
On me it is a child's Christmas morning and magical memories of the past that soothe and comfort the heart. There is nothing else quite like it when it's loving your chemistry.
It's soft and powdery and sweet and sexy all at once. I truly adore the vintage aroma and lush feeling behind this fragrance as it blossoms on my skin.
When I've worn it I've had some of the most heartfelt compliments about how nice it smells on me.
Thank you Chanel for such a beautiful gift of enchantment in a bottle!
Edit: I don't love it because It's Chanel. I'm not a "brand" oriented person and certainly don't have money but to me this is a soft and cozy scent that doesn't hit you over the head (not the way I wear it descretely) but it's like a lovely baby powdery sort of smell.
Because this is such an iconic fragrance I really wanted to love it. But I don't. It's a very sweet floral with a metallic edge and old-lady-dusting-powder finish. Very artificial chemical scent and very unappealing. Gorgeous bottle, however.
The smell of this perfume seems so serious to me. It does not smell like a fun, girly, carefree perfume. It strikes me as very sophisticated and strong. I feel like I need to be at least 50 years old in order to wear this, which is definitely not my type of perfume. I got this as a gift, otherwise I never would purchase it on my own. So, it depends on personal taste. You want to try something more serious and bold, then this is your type. If you want something floral, flirty, and fun, buy something else.
CNo5 is one of those scents that definitely work better with some body chemistry than others. It smelled divine on my mother and I always wanted to wear it but never felt it worked for me. After she died I kept her bottles, one unopened that I had given her. Now and then, I wear it and it seems to work for me better; maybe my body has changed. One crucial thing to note is NEVER to waste your money on EDT. You can only get the real depth of CNo5's complexity and charm from EDP.
Coco Chanel did not intend this perfume to be flowery - it is a "chypre" which does not rely on flowers to give the base notes because flowers cannot produce the dry notes in Chanel 5 . It was formulated from musks and dehydes (synthetics) and, I believe, was the first created scent to use synthetics.
If Chanel 5 smells great on you and people notice it, it's just fabulous but it is yet another scent that fades to zero on me . I adore it and tend to spray it on my clothes (where it lasts longer)rather than on myself but my husband (whose opinion counts most of all) makes no comment when I wear it I don't think men find it particularly sexy or memorable.
What is TaniaRides going on about?! Anyone who knows about this perfume's history will know that Coco Chanel Intended for this fragrance to have no flowery natural composition, and was a very well put together piece of chemicals.
This scent is not right for me. I don't think it's the worse, but I'm looking for a scent that is wow on me.