This fragrance company describes its scent as "a powdery floral fragrance, an escape to warm sandy shores." But it does not smell like warm sandy shores and does not really smell floral. This smells almost exactly like one of Bvlgari's signature female scents (I think it's called Crystalline or Omnia), except lacking some aspect. It has that baby powder scent laced in with a hint of delicate floral iris, but the floral scent is so light it's hard to detect. It lists as having tangerine as a contained scent also, but I smelled absolutely nothing citrusy in it. It also lists as having sandalwood (the base musk), which is one of my favorite scents ever, but I could not detect it in this fragrance, at least in my bottle. It smells like a watered down version of baby powder, and if you like very delicate scents, you may like this, and I do admit that it is my favorite of the Emilio Pucci trio of scents I've tried thus far (SOLE149 and ACQUA330 being the two others).
Monday, December 14, 2009
Review of Emilio Pucci's SOLE149
Why is this marketed as a women's fragrance? It's described by the company as "an aromatic floral, an escapade to sun-drenched island landscapes." However, it must be noted that there is an overbearing scent of vetiver which is used in this concotion. Vetiver is primarily used as a man's scent and is reminiscent of men's cologne or aftershave. If used as a women's scent, it needs to be paired carefully with the right scents, otherwise it will come out smelling awkward. This smell turns me off very much, because it evokes the image of a muscle man donning a yellow biker's suit and heavily drenched in grandma's musty floral perfume. Sorry, but I will not be wearing this perfume again. At least Emilio Pucci's other scent, ACQUA330, smells very freshly masculine, but this one is a blend between the two (masculine/feminine) which just does not seem to work for my nose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
