Olfactoria Is Pretty Angry – Review: Chanel 1932

When I smelled 1932 for the first time last week, it was with high expectations. It is a Chanel after all and the reviews I have read so far had been positive. Unfortunately I went away from the boutique disappointed. But not to be giving up too early, I procured a sample and proceeded to thoroughly test the newest member of Les Exclusifs.

Here are my impressions…

chanel 19321932 was created by Jacques Polge and includes notes of jasmine, vetiver and iris. (A more extensive list is provided by Fragrantica: aldehydes, bergamot, neroli, jasmine, rose, lilac, carnation, ylang-ylang, vetiver, sandalwood, opoponax, orris root, coumarin, ambrette, musk, incense, vanilla and iralia.)

1932 smells good. So much for that. My problem is that is smells good in an entirely predictable way. I experienced a distinct “been there, smelled that” sensation. 1932 smells expensive (as it well should!) and it smells clean, fresh, floral, soapy… what does this all add up to? For me it adds up to the idea of shampoo unfortunately.

1932 is part of a genre I would think is already sufficiently covered, not only on the perfume market in general but even within the Les Exclusifs line. Beige and Gardènia are both done in the same vein. Pretty, inoffensive, happy, clean florals that are a decent and faithful everyday companions exuding the typical Chanel elegance, but none of its character.

1932 doesn’t stand out, on the contrary: it blends in.

The perfume is inspired by Chanel’s jewellery line, sparkling diamonds, precious metals, unbelievable luxury and beauty – what an inspiration and all they came up with is an inoccuous floral?

Since I only do one review per week these days, I usually want it to be of something I really like. I don’t like to spend my time with things I don’t adore or that leave me cold. But here I wanted to make a point writing about it anyway.

Because the thing is this: I do not hate 1932. It is well made, it smells good enough to wear without regrets over a few days as I did, but – big but – it is a huge disappointment, because it makes me feel like the perfume industry has given up.

Indies and small companies aside, the big shots (of which Chanel is one of the biggest in my eyes and I don’t mean numbers and money here) don’t dare to be innovative anymore. Fear leads the nose of Jacques Polge, fear and consideration of the needs of his marketing department, not creativity, not art, not the curiosity to explore new paths. He played it safe.

1932 is interchangeable, for me it lacks character and spine. Maybe I’m too harsh here, but in my opinion the house of Chanel deserves more. The name Chanel should be on creations that are extraordinary, not your run-of-the-mill, nice and pretty, everyday floral.


What are your thoughts?

Postscriptum: To reassure myself that Chanel is very capable of producing masterpieces, I reminded myself by wearing Bois des Iles, N°19 and 28 La Pausa and I’m truly thankful these perfume exist an I hope they will be here forever. I’m not so sure 1932 will.

Image source: becomegorgeous.com, imfunny.net

About Olfactoria

I'm on a journey through the world of fragrance - come with me!
This entry was posted in Chanel, Floral, Fragrance Reviews, Jasmine, Les Exclusifs de Chanel and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Olfactoria Is Pretty Angry – Review: Chanel 1932

  1. Tatiana says:

    That cat photo cracked me up! He looks very, very, very grumpy.
    I tried this last week. It was nice enough and it reminded me of other perfumes in the Exclusifs line. For me it was nothing special and not worth the price, especially since it barely lasted two hours on my skin. I have other Chanel scents I love; No.19, Bois des Iles, Cuir de Russie and 28 La Pausa, so I suppose there is no need for another love. I guess I didn’t get too angry about it because I liked the other fragrance I tried that day, Jour d’Hermes. Yesterday, I tried Vero Profumo Mito for the second time and my husband went crazy over it. Since I’m finding other likes and loves, it makes it easier to dismiss the ones that fall into the “meh” category.

    • Olfactoria says:

      Love that cat! 🙂
      I am angry, because it is CHANEL!!!! They are judged on a higher level in my book, and they surely didn’t deliver for a while (Jersey, Coco Noir…).
      But maybe I shouldn’t say anything (a bit too late, I know 😉 ), because maybe it is just me…

  2. Undina says:

    I haven’t tried this one yet but hope to do it really soon. While in general I agree – it’s a pity that Chanel keeps releasing just not interesting perfumes (and I didn’t have high expectations for 1932 from the very beginning) I think I’ll be glad not to like a perfume: I have too many “want” on my list as is, so I can easily do without one more 😉
    (That cat is just a perfect illustration to how you feel)

    • Olfactoria says:

      I did take Jersey, No19 Poudre and Coco Noir with a shrug of my shoulders and moved on, but somehow the inexplicable unoriginality of 1932 is too much. I want Chanel to dazzle me… sigh.
      Won’t happen. 😦
      As you say, the upside is: money saved.

  3. ariane says:

    Sigh…I take your word for it-someone had said it was a mix between 31Rue Cambon and La Pausa,which got me excited.Thanks for telling it like it is,I hope more people will and word will get round to Mr. Polge that there are still people out there wanting,craving creative expression and expecting a house like Chanel to live up to its high standard!

  4. IsabelleMi says:

    I think 1932 is lovely but as you said “been there, smelled that” – a kind of potpourri.

  5. andrea says:

    I too thought it was lovely but not groudbreaking BUT sometimes I don’t want / need groundbreaking and I have a bottle on order when it arrives at Place Vendome, I don’t feel the need for groundbreaking on daily basis as they can be a challenge to wear and can be distracting at times. Dare I admit it, sometimes I just want to smell pretty.
    Of course the big bottle is on order for splitting purposes, I could not possibly use it all by myself. 🙂

  6. brie says:

    I love the title and that photo of the cat is too much 🙂 !!! I have not tried 1932 but have sampled Beige, Jersey and Coco Noir and, while all lovely, I am not willing to part with hard earned money for full bottles. Maybe because I am spoiled and remember the glorious Chanels from the 70s and 80s prior to reformulation. Even my beloved Cristalle has completely changed when compared to my vintage sample. Oh well, I am sorry to see you disappointed 😦 !!

  7. annemariec says:

    Oh I have no problem with Chanel producing a pretty, every-day floral. They have to make money, same as everyone. What is disappointing is they have apparently produced ANOTHER pretty floral, when they already have them aplenty in their exclusive and non-exclusive lines. And No 5 eau Premiere demonstrates that a pretty floral can also be GREAT – it can be wearable while still carrying the Chanel mark of distinction.

    Still, no artist can produce a masterpiece every time so why should Jacques Polge? The man probably needs a rest! The problem is that Chanel, like so many other companies, is producing too many fragrances too quickly. It can innovate, but won’t give itself the time, or allow itself to take the risk. Which is sad: given the gazillions of $ that Chanel surely makes from No 5, it can afford to take a risk if anyone can.

    So I guess I’m agreeing with you Birgit, I’m just less angry. Maybe brand loyalty matters less to me? Think of it this way – great books are published by many publishers. I don’t feel the need to buy all my books from Penguin, for example. If I admire an author I’ll buy her/his work from whoever publishes it.

    • Olfactoria says:

      We are on the same page here, Annemarie. The need to launch ANOTHER in a long line of happy, generic florals.
      I’m not sure whether the publishing house analogy holds up in this case for me. Chanel is an entity bigger than just a conduit for an artists work. It is an institution. And it will be judged as such.

      • annemariec says:

        Judged by what criteria though? Who has a right to impose those criteria? Chanel is not publicly owned and strictly speaking is accountable to no-one. Chanel only has to please itself and make money. It is not even responsible to shareholders. Yes, it has a fine history, but so what? It’s not family. We may feel as customers that we have a stake in the company, but do we? Our issue, as perfume enthusiasts, is that we are only a tiny minority of Chanel’s customers. Do we have any influence? I doubt it.

        Okay, I’m playing Devil’s advocate. I do know what you mean and how you feel. I guess I’m just presenting the the extreme other end of the argument. I’m happy to hear an argument that Chanel’s history and traditions do transcend narrow commercialism to become part of a shared culture …

        • Olfactoria says:

          By the criteria they themselves set by being Chanel? By being the patrons of the world’s most famous and well-known (not to mention bestselling) perfume?
          They are not accountable to anyone, here we completely agree – my gripe is that they act as if they are. They produce crowd pleasers that might well have gone through a Utah mall focus group (albeit at a higher quality level of ingredients).
          We, as perfume enthusiasts, do not have much influence. And I’m not assuming for a moment that my “bad” review has any impact whatsoever, but for me it makes a huge difference whether I am disappointd by Chanel (or Guerlain, or Dior to not take it all out on Chanel) or by a celebrity scent or a designer perfume.
          Just like I tend to be more disappointed if I find a meal at the Waldorf-Astoria lacking, than I would be at McDonalds. Or if I didn’t like a book, I would be more disappointed if it came from John Irving than from Dan Brown.
          The history and image of the “producer” have undeniable and important influence on the product, in my opinion.

  8. Dubaiscents says:

    I smelled this today (just on a strip because apparently they are not letting people try it here yet until it launches in a few weeks). I was not going to say anything until I can actually try it on but, I have to agree that my first impression was not that great. Yes, it smells nice but, I have lots of nice things for a lot less money. I will wait and see what I think once I can try it but, with my bad luck with this exclusives collection I don’t have high hopes.

    • Olfactoria says:

      Too bad you haven’t yet found anything to your liking in the Les Exclusifs (have you tried Bois des Iles?).
      I fear 1932 might not be the one to sway you. 😉

      • Dubaiscents says:

        Funny you mention Bois Des Iles, the SA insisted I try this on so I did. It is a very nice soft leather. I do enjoy it but, it disappeared rather quickly on my skin. At least not liking these saves me a little money 🙂

  9. Lady Jane Grey says:

    Na bumm !
    (I haven’t tried it yet, a sample is on its way to me. I expect something “Iris Poudre-esque”. We’re spoiled, my dear B. …;-) )

  10. Kafkaesque says:

    I was bored to tears, but I assumed that it was just me because I do not like soapy aldehydes or very discreet, bland florals. I think I said in my review of it that it conjured up some very reserved, haughty, cold 1950s social leader with her bouffant frozen into a helmet, her gloves on and not a thing out of place. IMO, it’s a very classique scent that will appeal to a lot of women who are looking for that very signature Chanel scent but who don’t want anything that is in the slightest way daring, distinctive, or obtrusive. But for me — I’d never wear it in a million years. I would dislike it intensely and with a passion, except it is far, far, FAR too boring to arouse any such passionate feelings.

  11. Tara says:

    What a shame! I haven’t tried it yet, but no doubt I will come to the same conclusion. I think it’s fair to have expectations for Les Exclusifs. They have a great heritage, money, talent and do not have to appeal to the mainstream. I had particularly high hopes for this because of those notes. It doesn’t sound like the opoponax, incense and courmarin make much of an appearance. When you think of the fragrance it could have been it really feels like a wasted opportunity. I’ll still it of course, but I won’t rush. A soapy floral is the last thing I need, as lovely as it may be.

    Thanks for speaking up and re-adjusting my expectations in the meantime, it would have been a real downer!

  12. Asali says:

    Thanks to a kind fragrance fairy I had the sample of 1932 way before any reviews turned up. But I thought it was so normal-pretty-middle-of-the-road-kind of thing, and- MOST importantly- evaporated so quickly, that when I tried to figure out what I thought about it, it was gone. So, even if I had wanted to review it, there just wasn’t anything much to say. I was honestly surprised that so many found so much to say.

  13. Sassa says:

    I’ve been playing around with a couple of samples, and I have to say the opening is fantastic – no, for me, I would say spectacular. I can see and feel the shooting spray of diamonds. When I first sprayed it on at the Chanel boutique, I gasped involuntarily “That’s beautiful!” And it’s continued to have that effect on me with each new spray. Unfortunately, after that amazing opening, the heart and dry drown become, as you say, ordinary. All the punch is in the first 10 minutes or so.
    So, as much of a Chanel gal as I am, I will be satisfied with a decant of this. It’s not going to become a go to scent, but I will spray it when I need to feel that I’ve just opened one of those famous little blue boxes (ok, I know I’m mixing my Chanel with my Tiffany reference) containing a diamond necklace.
    Preferably bestowed on me by Kilian Hennessy.
    Excuse me, while I go think about that for a while……

  14. Alice says:

    Agree, lacking in any distinctive character, and totally unmemorable. Sprayed it on a card in the store, initially it reminded me of a weak 31 Rue Cambon, but that was fleeting. Tried again this morning, but have already forgotten wha tit smelled like!. On the same trip, I treid several of the Atelier Colognes and was given a sample ot Rose Anonym, a perfect example of a perfume that manages to be simultaneously light, but intriguing and intelligent. Love it! There is no comparison between the two.

  15. Sandra says:

    I understand your frustration completely! I could not even justify trying it on my skin when I smelled it on the strip. How sad is that? Oh well- on to the next one I go.

  16. Now you DEFINITELY have me intrigued Birgit. I want to smell what CHANEL bland is like, not to buy but to experience. Thanks for being honest.
    Portia xx

  17. Alexandra says:

    I was already a little non-plussed about this scent and now I am positively disinterested; but then a ‘nice’ floral was never going to appeal to me and I understand the need for some ‘nice’ florals in a perfume line. But you are right that it is the trend that is of concern: if Chanel – who have a ready-made, captive audience, who are prepared to be introduced to something both beautiful and interesting – err on the side of caution and make mass-market friendly pretty things, is this another nail in the coffin of mainstream perfumery?

    P.s. I write this comment while mentally stroking my beloved bottle of Bois de Iles and day-dreaming about a bottle of Cuir de Russie…*

  18. Philipp says:

    I totally agree with you. I arranged to get a decant all the way from Canada and the juice I got was hardly worth all the trouble. I expected something else altogether, not this bland jasmine concoction.

  19. annina says:

    Yes, yes, yes! I too was disappointed! To me, 1932 smells like a lighter, more white-flowery, less interesting 31RC. No thanks, I’ll stick with my beloved 31!

  20. Suzanne says:

    A couple months ago, before I had even heard that this new Chanel was coming out, Asali had a sample and described it to me in rather wan terms. Now your review confirms that it’s rather unremarkable, so thank you, Birgit. I trust both your judgments enough to know that this is not a Chanel for me.

  21. Bhama says:

    I adore the expression on his little face! Oh well, that’s money saved that I can use to buy my beloved cuir de Russie!!!!!

  22. Ari says:

    Birgit, are you familiar with Grumpy Cat? I think that you would REALLY enjoy Grumpy Cat. 😉

    I loathe jasmine, so I already knew to stay far away from 1932.

  23. lucasai says:

    sorry 1932 was disappointing to you. I really like it. Maybe because it simply appeals to me or maybe I haven’t experienced as many similar perfume as you did, to day that it reminds me of something else

  24. Oh my! That is a seriously grumpy kitty! I was looking forward to this too based on positive reviews. Well, I guess it never hurts to ratchet down expectations. Better to be surprised than to be disappointed.

  25. Civava says:

    The cat says it all. I don’t think what fears could Chanel have. It never did. But that is really boring. I didn’t expect that from the icon or let’s say fallen icon. Too bad.

  26. Thank you for your honest review, Birgit…it is wonderful and fresh to see one on these product blogs. My personal Chanel favs are Cristalle and No. 22 which I do not believe are still in production sadly. I loved Cristalle for its green modernity, and No. 22 for its powdery vanilla scent.
    Would you know of any companies that make a scent like Cristalle? I do not purchase many big name lines anymore, and stick with the independent natural essential oil perfumes now so I am not up to date with all that is currently available. Any guidance from you or your readers would be appreciated.

    • Olfactoria says:

      Hello Mary,
      you are welcome! Thanks for reading!
      Cristalle and No22 are still in production. No22 as EdT is part of the Les Exclusifs line (available in Chanel boutiques and online), Cristalle is readily available in Europe in EdP and EdT and even has a flanker called Cristalle Eau Verte. I don’t know whether it is being distributed in the US though. If you need help getting it from Europe, don’t hesitate to let me know, I’d gladly help.

      • Thank you so much for replying to my query, Birgit. I may take you up on acquiring some Cristalle in the future, and I’ll go check out the Les Exclusifs for No. 22–it’s great to be brought up to date on these classics. By the way, I love your blog…been following you for some time now, and we are connected on Linkedin, however, this is only the second time I left a comment, and you are so timely and gracious in your responses. Since I am an Aromatherapist, scent is one of my favorite subjects and your writing about it is superb along with the entertaining photos!

        • Olfactoria says:

          Thank you very much for your kind words, Mary. I’m glad you enjoy my blog!

        • masha7 says:

          I used to wear the original Cristalle ages ago as a teen, it was my signature scent, and it simply doesn’t exist anymore. The vintage version tends to have gone off, the new versions are horribly meh. I’ve been trying to recreate the original Cristalle experience in my perfume lab for 2 years! I’m getting close….The closest commercial scent that I’ve found is Martin Marghiela Untitled (the original)- it’s not identical, it’s got a similar vibe, but it’s not easy to find. Among the Chanels, Bel Respiro has a bit of Cristalle to it, but it’s not the same. Love Bel Respiro, though.

          • Thank you very much, masha7, for your comments. Yes, after years of savoring my little sample bottle and my 1 fl oz size of Cristalle, they have finally started to go off. What a shame Chanel did not continue to make it just as it was…I wasn’t a big fan of No. 5, No. 19 was okay, but the Cristalle was my absolute favorite and the No. 22 was just when I felt like wearing something cozy. I suppose I should have bought more Cristalle when it was around….I think I had purchased it as a gift set for myself @2000-2001…so thank goodness it lasted this long. The color started to darken and then the scent has changed only in the last 6 months. Well, that will teach a girl to wear her favs lavicously since all things seem to disappear sooner than later in the fragrance/cosmetics world.

            I will definitely check out your suggestions as possilbe replacements for Cristalle…I may even have grown into a new Chanel Fragrance, however, from all the comments here, I have my doubts….I hope someone from Chanel is reading this blog.

    • Mahesh says:

      There’s something very similar ro cristalle and it is sisley’s eau de campagne.

      • masha7 says:

        That’s another one with a similar vibe, though on me, it has a soapy drydown, which Cristalle did not have.

      • Thank you, Mahesh, for your rec of Sisley’s Eau de Champagne(?) campagne(?)–I haven’t been to a perfume counter in ages and definitely need a refresher course. However, when the companies all began to use synthetics, it affected my sniffer, and I couldn’t abide the fragrances. I had thought Chanel would keep them more like pure flower essences, but alas!

  27. Vanessa says:

    I loved your grumpy review, and that super grumpy cat pic. I am sure it is exactly as you say – though I did have high hopes of a coruscating diamante-like opening based on a couple of other reviews I read. However, even if it is bland and safe, I have a sneaking suspicion I might love it! (But you know what I am like…. : – ) ) Anything in Eau Premiere territory would be just the ticket, though I would want it not to smell too similar to any other Chanel. And I don’t actually like Gardenia – that is a bit shampoo-y for me. A fizzy Beige would be okay.

  28. Parfumesse says:

    Brigit you are bang on and couldn’t agree with you more! I always get so excited when Chanel comes out with a new release,I keep thinking that it will be something out of this world but it often isn’t lately 😦 it’s a shame really…I mean 1932 is nice but nothing earth shattering by any means.

  29. Ellie says:

    Thank Goodness someone else is disappointed too! I got a sample and sprayed it generously on my pulse/arm. In 2 hrs. it was gone and was truly nothing special, except the name, which I love.

  30. Mahesh says:

    Frankly I tried liking many of chanels fragrances but there’s not a single one I’m crazy after. Some of them end up smelling similar during dry down or after and some of them typical, I.e. men’s are as they should be full of citrus and women’s are floral. The only distinguishing ones I think are coromondel and possibly syconore that havent been done by anyone and stand out from other chanel range.

  31. Miss Woolf says:

    I see a lot of references to Bois des Iles here and I’m curious to know whether you (Birgit or anyone else) is referring to its current formulation or an earlier one. I have heard that these days it is but a mere shadow of its glorious former self. Do you agree?

    • Olfactoria says:

      Asa, I only know the current Les Exclusifs version of the scent, and frankly, I’m glad, because I don’t even want to get into the heartache of falling in love with an unattainable vintage version.
      I think the current EdT is fabulous (the extrait even better) and I adore this perfume.

  32. nukapai says:

    Thank you for a really interesting post. It’s not so much a review but a challenge to Chanel 🙂
    If I put my marketing hat on and play a bit of Devil’s Advocate, let’s try to imagine why Chanel has the Les Exclusifs line in the first place. Maybe it is primarily aimed at wealthy customers who are just as interested in modern, frilly trends in perfume as the next person but wish to stand apart from the hoi polloi of the mainstream “shampoo themed” fragrances. I can just imagine a conversation: “We want to tap into the trend for light, accessible, inoffensive and safe fruity florals. Can you do one that fits into the Exclusifs line for us, and we’re thinking this might have a short lifespan so we need to keep the budget for the juice to a minimum to get a maximum return of investment.” Off goes the perfumer to fulfil this exciting brief; probably trying to sneak in a flourishes of personality which get shaved off by the client in successively more “safe” variations until you end up with a juice that the market research group consisting of high maintenance trophy wives and their teenage daughters will be perfectly satisfied that they, too, can now smell trendy, but when someoene below their social status asks, eyes gleaming “what is that nice perfume you’re wearing?” they can safely state, “oh, it’s from Chanel Exclusifs, you know, terribly expensive and only available in the boutiques, darling.”

    You can’t blame for Chanel for trying to tap into this and for wanting to make money. Will this damage their brand? Probably not. Will it disappoint perfume connoisseurs who have put Chanel on a pedastal? Yes. 🙂

  33. Ann-Sofie says:

    Heartbreaking indeed that the world of Chanel do not accommodate to such a highly sensitive nose as yours. Of course the fragrance market should evolve around your olfactory glands.

  34. Ann-Sofie says:

    The very best (awesome, really) answer – thanks!

  35. masha7 says:

    I just really took a look at her (because I’m more of a Rabbit Girl), and that is the World’s Most Grumpy Cat! Did you give it a treat, I hope, to cheer it up??

  36. Jordan River says:

    A Bleu experience. I sympathize having gone through a similar experience. With Bleu I liked the masculine glam bottle which I bought in two sizes but the juice was general release. I don’t wear but I smell it everyone. Hope that part does not happen to you.

  37. I totally understand! Its the same feeling I got when I sniffed Chanel no 19 poudre, and Coco Noir. I was quite upset that these flankers did not bear any resemblance to their original brethren. I wear no 19 a lot and to see Chanel producing spineless scents like these upset me. I don’t want just nice, I want an “OMG” moment. Well I’ll just hide in the corner with my vintage Guerlains and Chanels.

    • Olfactoria says:

      Thanks for understanding!
      I realize that not everything can be OMG all the time, but Chanel had an unfortunate number of duds in the past few years (Bleu, No19 Poudre, Coco Noir, Jersey and now this).
      I’ll join you in your corner! 🙂

  38. rickyrebarco says:

    I love your grumpy cat! I hope I don’t feel the same way after testing 1932, but I may. I have a sample on the way. Like you, I was hoping for a NOT Beige. Something exciting and different. I guess we have to look to the niche perfumers these days to do anything different. Shame.

    • Olfactoria says:

      Helo rickyrebarco,
      I hope you are not as disappointed as I was. But I can’t for the life of me imagine that your wish for something exciting and different will be fulfilled with 1932… 😦

  39. Natalie says:

    Excellent comments. I’m not happy that Chanel produced something so mundane, but I’m glad that you called it out. I really feel that there are some companies that are, as you said, giving up. And that’s a real shame. I believe consumers want and will demand (once they know they can) perfume that is better than average.

    • Olfactoria says:

      I’m glad you share my opinion, Natalie! It’s so sad and dispiriting to know that some companies are giving in to the pressures of satisfying a perceived “need” for mediocrity.

  40. Ann C. says:

    My reaction to 1932 was quite different. Nothing shampoo-y, Beige falls into that category for me, and it didn’t strike me as haughty or snooty at all. I agree that 1932 is not groundbreaking; it reminded me of 31RC. I haven’t done a side-by-side comparison yet, so that’s just an impression so far.

    I’ve heard some people say that 31RC is light and fleeting on them. It’s just the opposite on me–it’s rich and long-lasting. 1932 is less rich, but to borrow a phrase from someone at MUA, it’s all lovely “lipstick and sandalwood” on me. Well, maybe not the sandalwood so much. Still, although it doesn’t fill the room, I can smell pretty wafts of it at the end of a long day at work.

    • Olfactoria says:

      I love 31 RC and also find it rich and lasting well. What baffles me is the similarity to 1932 many seem to find, that totally escapes me, although I haven’t tested them side by side yet. (I should.)

  41. I don’t find it soapy at all. I have no shampoos that smell like 1932. Therein lies the subjective nature of fragrance. If Chanel created 1932 for women who want to smell good, that’s great. They caught me and, I’ll bet, millions of others who want to smell good – to ourselves or others. I’ve already received a compliment about 1932 from a source that surprised me. In my opinion, 1932 is not Beige, and it’s not Jersey. Out of my many hundreds of bottles of fragrance, I find it unique and, yes, I love jasmine.

    I am beginning to believe that an unfortunate aspect of new fragrances (and fragrance criticism today) is the fragrances must now astound/shock somehow. To my nose, many of the astounding fragrances being introduced to be unique, are assaulting (oud, I’m looking at you). They are so complicated, they smell like burned bricks or soup with one or two offensive spices thrown in for shock value. Yet they create a frenzy among today’s fragrance lovers. The next best thing.

    I’m fairly sure that if Patou’s Vacances or Diorissimo were introduced today, there would be a chorus declaring them boring and simplistic. That’s a shame. We floral lovers will continue to enjoy a new floral fragrance, despite the fact that more “sophisticated” noses don’t approve.

    One more thing…we all thought Chanel was crazy to put a scruffy, homeless appearing Brad Pitt into the No. 5 advertisements. How déclassé! They are laughing all the way to the bank. Their “misfire” brought them millions of dollars of unplanned publicity for which they paid nothing. Or was it unplanned?

    Now I wonder why that beautiful kitty was sitting so close to a tire. Bad owner! Cute photo. 🙂

    • Olfactoria says:

      Hello Charlestongirl,

      Thank you for adding your point of view!
      It is as you say: therein lies the the subjective nature of perfume.
      I didn’t want to offend anyone who loves 1932, that is the last thing I want.
      I can see what you mean about a certain lust for the new and provocative among Perfumistas.
      Ironically I feel much more like you do, that a perfume should smell good, not shock or baffle or provoke.
      Unfortunately 1932 smells very generic to me, and not in a way I enjoy, but that is just me after all and I can move on and happily wear my Bois des Iles or 31 RC and keep on admiring Chanel
      (and dreaming of their handbags 😉 ).

  42. Persolaise says:

    Oh my goodness. Now that I’ve published my own review of the scent, I’m permitting myself to read other people’s… and we may as well have written the same thing! Except I think you’re even more disappointed than I am.

    It’s a shame: a perfume inspired by dazzling jewels should’ve been so much more than this, right?

    • Olfactoria says:

      Except that you, true to British form, remained A LOT more polite in your review. 🙂

      I agree with you, the opening is truly lovely, but the generic drydown that follows can’t be anything than a letdown to me.
      I feel very vindicated in knowing that your opinion is similar to mine.

      • Persolaise says:

        🙂 Don’t forget: I’m not really British 😉 Although my dad always says that lots of English traits have rubbed off on me.

        And yes, I know what you mean about feeling vindicated. I feel the same. Sometimes, it’s helpful to have one’s views echoed by someone else.

  43. Pingback: Mood-Enhancing Perfumes – A Best Of-List | Olfactoria's Travels

  44. I very much enjoyed 1932 from the minute I sprayed it and was very taken with it – surprising for one who loves heavy orientals! First time round smelled it with a girlfriend, she adored it and later bought it. Same thing for my daughter, she loved it, and then I got it for her too. I love the idea of taking the young ones to special places and getting them used to buying good quality things which they appreciate and savour. 1932 is uncomplicated and pretty and sometimes in life that’s just what one needs. Unfortunately for 1932, if you belong to a venerable family like ‘Les Exclusifs’, it’s a bit like being Marilyn Monroe being born into a family of economists or philosophers – some people are going to find you wanting… It’s true that it doesn’t last as long as some of the other perfumes in this line, though the Parfum version, which I have obviously does.

    • Olfactoria says:

      Dear Lila, I couldn’t agree more about what you say regarding something pretty, easy to wear and uncomplicated. Edgy is not always better, that is for sure. I’ve come around on Jersey, I might come around on 1932 as well, who knows… 🙂
      And -as you know best- sometimes you have to go for the catchy title! 😉

  45. rickyrebarco says:

    I tend to agree with your review. The 1932 EDT I found not just boring, it really bothered me. It had such potential and it seemed to be such a muddle of notes. I even like florals and I am the world’s biggest iris lover but it still didn’t move me at all. Ultimately I felt as you did that it was awfully tame to be an Exclusif and it should sparkle- since it’s about the diamonds! No sparkle, this diamond needs more polishing!

    If this were a mainline frag, sure, take no chances, but for an Exclusif, I had hoped for something with more pizzaz in the EDT. But I tried the 1932 parfum extrait and I found it to be much better than the EDT. I have a sample of the 1932 extrait and I’ll give it another shot. Some days I just want to wear ‘safe and pretty’ so 1932 might work for those days.

  46. Pingback: Greeeeeeen! – Review: Robert Piguet Futur | Olfactoria's Travels

  47. Pingback: Who Said It’s Not Easy Being Green? – Perfume Lovers London, 22nd May 2014 | Olfactoria's Travels

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s