This fragrance attracted a modicum of praise, mostly about its “pleasant” nature, and one judge rhapsodized about the drydown. But the general feeling was a sense of disappointment.
“Built to be a blockbuster — this scent has intrigue, broad appeal and a lingering, heady sillage.”
Artistic score: 5 Technical score: 7

“Clone of a clone of a clone.”
Artistic score: 2 Technical score: 3

This story first appeared in the April 20, 2016 issue of WWD.  Subscribe Today.

“It’s unremarkable from a creative perspective — reminiscent of other gourmand florals in the marketplace — but the slice of citrus keeps it from being cloyingly sweet, and renders it wearable for a variety of ages.”
Artistic score: 6 Technical score: 5

“It may not be the most interesting fragrance artistically, but it is very pleasant and its drydown is wonderful — there is a newness and a unique quality to [it].”
Artistic score: 5 Technical score: 8

“A cheap, boring [and] girly scent copied from other places.”
Artistic score: 2 Technical score: 2

“This type of cloying tuberose has haunted the department stores for several years. But those who like to announce their presence with perfume will appreciate its calling-card potential.”
Artistic score: 4 Technical score: 7

“The juice is an ordinary white floral, fruity, cosmetic milky without any signature and body. It’s just a scent, nothing to say more.”
Artistic score: 2 Technical score: 5

“A rather quiet perfume with no real reason to be.”
Artistic score: 3 Technical score: 5

“Not original, pleasant and I don’t feel I’d like to spend $100 on such a scent.”
Artistic score: 3 Technical score: 2.5

“Been there, smelled that. Minimal signature. Someone has worked to polish it.”
Artistic score: 3 Technical score: 5

 

 

ABOUT THE TEST AND JUDGES: This is a blind test, panelists are given vials of unidentified scent to judge impartially. Each of them gives a score ranging from 1 (forgettable) to 10 (unforgettable) and the numbers are computed into a final grade. The judges, led by chairman Michael Edwards, also make critiques, which are unattributed to encourage candor. The most promising scents are picked for judging in an effort to find and showcase excellence. WWD buys the products at retail, like any other consumer. The esteemed judges are: Michael Edwards, author of “Fragrances of the World” and “Perfume Legends”; Paul Austin, chief executive officer of sensory storytelling agency Austin Advisory Group; Jean-Claude Delville, senior perfumer at Drom; Karen Dubin, founder and ceo of Sniffapalooza; Victoria Frolova, fragrance industry analyst and Bois de Jasmin editor; Christophe Laudamiel, master perfumer at DreamAir; Nathalie Pichard, owner of training and evaluation agency Topnotes; Chantal Roos, cocreator of Roos & Roos Co.; Luca Turin, biophysicist and perfume critic for arabia.style.com, and Kevin Verspoor, founder of PerfumeKev LLC.

load comments
blog comments powered by Disqus