Age: 30-35 Skin: Normal, Fair-Medium, Neutral Hair: Brunette, Straight Eyes: Brown
Totally agree with 'goldenjoy'. This is truly a sparkling, airy, and whimsical perfume but yes, it does not last as long. Probably lasts only 4 hours on me. Regardless of its terrible longevity (maybe will spray it on clothes and see) this is a beautiful perfume which I do enjoy. Definitely smells of ' expensive classy jewelry'. However since the fragrance is short lived, i can't justify spending so much money on it thus it's a no repurhcase.
Some of my favs include 'Beige', 'Gardenia', La Pausa, Bel Respiro, Cuir de Russe (or something like that), and Cormandal.
Age: 19-24 Skin: Oily, Fair, Cool Hair: Blond, Straight, Medium Eyes: Hazel
To me this screams casual chic. Its classic, sophisticated chanel but for a slighty younger and laid back gal. Compared to the many other beautiful scents chanel make it is slightly unmemorable but its still miles better quality than you get in other perfumes. I proabably wouldn't buy the very expensive full bottle but its worth a sample every now and then.
Age: 44-55 Skin: Combination, Fair-Medium, Warm Hair: Blond, Wavy, Medium Eyes: Blue
I read that this was a cross between 31 RC and another CHANEL exclusif, but I disagree. I've got 31 RC, and it's much richer and more forthright than 1932. 1932 is old school perfumerie. No skank, no "precious" or any other kind of wood (yes, I know there are descriptions showing a woodiness, but not to my nose). I get a not too sweet, soft, absolutely elegant floral. On first spray, you do get a lot of notes that smell like every second perfume out there, but within a few minutes the heart shows, and it's gorgeous. This fragrance is like a soft Sisley or some really retro frag from even before the 50's and 60's when things started to get bolder. 1932 is classic, wearable day or evening and even at work. (scent free environment, my big, white you-know-what...). Thanks to CHANEL boutique in Toronto for the sample - I will definitely purchase a bottle.
BTW, 1932 doesn't bowl you over or punch you in the nose. When you wear it, the only people who will know are the people you want to be close enough to notice...
***EDIT*** okay, it's tomorrow and NOW I get it about 31RC and EDC, plus a little of the Prada Iris drydown, in fact that prada slight woody/tinny drydown is a disappointment. I'll still buy it, but I don't think this frag is the big one for me. Good, in fact very good, but not the ultimate frag.
...and EDIT again...dropped to 4 lippies. I sprayed 31RC with a small blast of Herme Eau Orange just to see what would happen, and got something gorgeous. I think even better than 1932. so maybe no purchase, because I've already got the 31RC, which is really hard to beat.
Age: 30-35 Skin: Sensitive, Fair-Medium Hair: Brown Eyes: Green
I have been wearing Chanel for 30 years now. I LOVE Chanel and rarely do they let me down. When I first read the discription on 1932, I was ify on if it was going to be any good or not. I went and bought a bottle of 1932 today and I'm really kind of disappointed with it. Don't get me wrong it smells good. I think if you are new to Chanel you will absolutey love it. If you have been using Chanel for awhile, I'm afraid you might be a little let down as well.
While this purfume did let me down it is still a good scent. It would be great for those days when you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt, running around town.
Age: 30-35 Skin: Combination, Neutral Hair: Brunette Eyes: Brown
I was lucky enough to receive a sample of this fragrance and I love it so much I can't wait to buy a bottle. This is the first of the Chanel Exclusifs line that I have sampled, so unfortunately I can't compare it to any of the others from this line.
1932 is meant to be evocative of Chanel's first fine jewelry line. If you look at any Chanel fine jewelry pieces, they are beyond gorgeous. They are whimsical, airy, and sparkling. I feel like 1932 captures exactly that mood of the jewelry. This fragrance is a light and airy floral, with some soft woods to add depth.
This is not a long wearing fragrance. On my skin, it lasted maybe 2 hours before I couldn't smell it anymore. I did spray it on a cashmere scarf as well and there the fragrance lasted and lasted. I could still smell it the next day.
At first spray, I did smell some similarities between this fragrance and my EDT of Chanel No.5. The jasmine in 1932 is gorgeous. It is clean and airy and sparkling. Definitely not heady or dirty. So overall it gives the fragrance the feel of a very refined soft clean floral that sparkles at the beginning and then settles into a soft woodsy clean drydown.
Overall this is my perfect fragrance for everyday, very easy and wearable. This is the type of fragrance that makes you feel polished and put together. Be prepared to reapply though since the lasting power on this is fleeting.
Age: 44-55 Skin: Combination, Fair-Medium Hair: Brunette Eyes: Brown
Ok, two exclusifs- Chanel EDC and 31 Rue Cambon- had an offspring: out came 1932!
Now, don't get me wrong, I love both of these and have bought two LARGE bottles of each.. but don't try to sell me a song and dance about the jewels, the light, the blah blah blah (you'd have to look at some of the reviews and the ad copy of this one to know what I'm referring to) and then try to sell me a mish-mash of both. Perhaps there is a market for a more lemony Rue Cambon? Well , there you have it. The citrus of the EDC is very marked throughout, overlying the rich ambery tapestry that is Rue Cambon. My first impression (and hope) was that this was a much lighter fragrance than Rue Cambon, which can weigh on me at times, but what I initially thought was "space" between the heavy sandalwood yumminess of Cambon, turned out to be a citrus magnolia accord. This is a VERY diffusive and hermetic scent. Do not expect a light one. One small spritz on the back of one hand lasted well over 6 hours and diffused beautifully around me. To use the analogy of fabric, if Rue Cambon is a brocade of the autumnal orange of a persimmon, 1932 is a thick cream-colored tweed (ooooh lined in navy leather, how very Chanel...)
In fact, the lemony amberiness of 1932 very quickly reminded me of Shalimar Light (the original one), which I've loved and wore through a glorious Paris heat wave a few years ago.
Again, taken on its own I think 1932 is lovely. It's just not an original and was clearly the rather lazy re-tweeking of Rue Cambon. Why not call it Rue Cambon Light? Ok, I can see that doesn't sound so great.. Still, I expect more transparency from a company like Chanel.
The good news is that these babies are available in smaller bottles than the original keg-sized troughs, so that *if* you do feel the need to lighten up your Rue Cambon you can do so without dipping into the kids' college fund.