4/16/12

One Last Word On Brut . . .


I happened across the above advertisement for Brut. And I noticed that it mentions its price ranging from $7.50 to $100. Pretty broad range. But $100!?! I guess back in the day, this stuff could get pretty pricey. It certainly wasn't a drugstore write-off frag. I didn't realize it was ever that expensive! Okay, that's all I had to say.











6 comments:

  1. I know I'd mentioned my mother-in-law in my own review before, but I'll elaborate. She was born and raised in France, and lived there when Brut was released in the Sixties. I remember a few years back, my wife (also a perfume nut) and I were cracking jokes about Brut and how cheap it was. My mother-in-law walked in the room and said, "What are you talking about? Oh, Brut used to be an expensive perfume!" She went on to say that she remembered spending a lot of money buying a bottle of Brut for my father-in-law as a gift back in the Seventies, and that it was a great fragrance, and not considered crass or cheap at all. She thinks Brut smells really good, but that you need to be the right kind of man to pull it off.

    So, you're absolutely right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's interesting. She must think it strange to find Brut in drugstores for under ten quid. So many of these oldies-but-goodies were luxury items back in their day, and today . . . not so much. I must say, the more I wear it, the more I find Brut to be a solid fougere with a strong white floral blend - it's really quite fresh and pleasant. I'm actually wondering if the celebrity marketing was meant to distract from the overt feminine elements lurking in the formula. Also, I recall Brut smelling a hell of a lot sweeter as of ten years ago. Has it been reformulated recently? This isn't the same stuff I remember from a few years back . . . maybe they went back to the original formula now that the weirdo '90s/early aughts, and all their sweet'n fresh nonsense, are over.

      Delete
  2. I don't know about formulation. I have four old vintage bottles of Brut (yes, I love this frag), and other than the fact that the top notes have evaporated, I don't smell a big difference between them and Brut Classic. I find Classic a tad less sweet, but not by much. I think that's due more to the fact that my bottle of Classic has all the top notes intact, which are pretty strong and sharp and create a sense of dryness.

    I'm glad to own the old Brut bottles, but it isn't worth scouring the earth for them. Brut Classic smells better than all four of my vintage bottles.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw Luca Turin gave it 2 stars in The Guide . . . he seems to think they only make Brut in plastic (no one told him about the same old Brut in glass?) and considers the current formulation to be somewhat sub-par. I think it smells fine, and between this and Old Spice I'm starting to think they've come up with better ways to handle fragrance in plastic bottles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Which of the current versions of Brut do you like best?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Toss up between the plastic bottled cologne and Brut Classic.

      The plastic formula is strong and lasts the longest, and also doesn't smell in any way "touched" by plastic. Classic is quieter with shorter legs but has a little more complexity, mostly in the crisp-minty top notes. Either one is excellent imo. The "Splash-On" is OK but way to short-lived, and I'm not sure bringing Brut 33 back was worth the effort in that regard.

      Delete

Thank you for your comment. It will be visible after approval by the moderator.