![]() |
Frida Giannini |
From Pyrgos
3/9/25
Gucci Guilty Pour Homme Eau de Toilette (Gucci)
3/1/25
Eau de Protection (Etat Libre d'Orange)
Hindsight is 20/20. Looking back at my least favorite decade, the 2000s, I now see it was a time of freshness and metallic sourness, which is vastly preferable to the dessert-cart sugared ambers that dominate today’s fragrance landscape. Eau de Protection (2007), created by the Two Antoines, Lie and Maisondieu, house perfumers for Free Orange State, smells both fresh and sour, with a gorgeous rosy sweetness. Green and pert, it undergirds the ozonics. How does this read in 2025? Is it wearable?
Wearing a bittersweet green floral like Eau de Protection in today's world presents three issues. First, those too young to remember that era will think you smell weird. Second, the public may misinterpret the scent. Third, those who do remember might find it dated. Gen Z simply won’t understand, so if you’re a guy hoping to attract young women, good luck. Wearing a fresh green floral as a man also invites scrutiny from the gender discourse brigade, always eager to apply labels. Then there’s the occasional comment: “You smell like a girl I knew in college.”
Setting aside the social pitfalls, I really like Eau de Protection. It is unisex, leaning feminine, and reminds me of Banana Republic’s Peony & Peppercorn. This version, though, is far more refined, with better materials and a more subtle approach. This should be the defining masculine fragrance of 2025, if only because women have moved away from floral scents. Meanwhile, the Ambroxan-and-patchouli-isolate trend of Sauvage and Bleu de Chanel is played out. Eau de Protection is an ode to freshness, greenness, and floralcy, a gilded beauty in an olfactory Garden of Eden. I’m here for it. Full bottle worthy, though I tend to procrastinate with niche.
2/25/25
Burberry Hero (Burberry)
If you ever look back at the early 1970s, you’ll see a world that embraced excess with a certain kind of reckless pride. Films were bawdy, vulgar, and all sorts of other things that begin with the letter “v,” but they were competently made and carried an undeniable vibrance. Even the most outrageous productions had craftsmanship behind them, and people took pride in their work—no matter what that work was. You didn’t watch movies in the comfort of your home; even the most risqué entertainment had to be viewed in public theaters, often in major metro hubs like Times Square. After the show, you could step out for a hot dog and then spend the rest of the afternoon shopping at Bloomingdale’s.
Perfume was that way, too. Brut. Jovan Musk. Pierre Cardin Pour Monsieur. Bawdy, bare-chested, ready for anything at any moment—brutal and assaulting the senses as olfactory assailants in their private romances. Yet they were produced on generous budgets using skilled perfumers, and despite their downmarket appeal, they were respectable and widely loved, not unlike the raunchy, provocative films of Jean Rollin. America and Europe had their many differences, but they could agree on their love for indulgence, and perfume was no exception. This was good for culture, good for art, good for society. People were freer, their sense of intellect was deeper, and their senses were attuned to finer things. I dare say that although it was a time before the digital age, it was a time when people were more advanced in their understanding of life.
Today, none of this is true. We have jettisoned art, jettisoned the vulgar, abandoned the wanton excesses of yore, all for the restrictive safety of risk-free sure-things. Movies are pallid ghosts of their former selves, devoid of humor, seduction, and sin. Perfumes have also shriveled up into little shivering weaklings, created not by people of knowledge and power but by scared little runts in off-the-rack suits who think that, because they’re European, sophistication is innate to them and need not be cultivated. They churn out the most focus-grouped garbage, boring sweet ambers, a dime a dozen, simply because an A.I. app tells them it will sell, and they sprinkle in whatever organic note the A.I. is kind enough to recommend. In Burberry Hero Eau de Parfum’s case, it was pine.
2/16/25
Sloth (Zoologist)
I often wonder if rich people actually wear these perfumes. If I were a millionaire, would Sloth by Zoologist be my signature scent? Then I hop into my downmarket Toyota Corolla and drive to Woodbury, where I drop $100 on seven grocery items at New Morning Market, inhaling that unmistakable “health food store” aroma—spices, grains, and wood. And that’s when it hits me: Sloth is right at home in a millionaire’s lair. This is the premier fragrance of choice for the Connecticut blue blood who drops $500 on groceries that barely last the weekend. Why not?
There’s no use romanticizing this fragrance. Sloth smells like spicy body odor, and wearing it feels like a social experiment gone wrong. It reminds me of a grad school professor—another lefty blue blood—who spent half a class reminiscing about visiting India, where crowds of poor people reached out and touched her clothes, which she somehow recalled fondly. I imagine that scene smelled exactly like Sloth. Prin Lomros (the nose behind Bat and Rhinoceros) created this one, but I just don’t get it. Perfume is supposed to make you smell good. Sloth does the opposite.
What anyone sees in this is beyond me. The stench of unwashed skin is precisely what I’m trying to avoid, and if I’ve just showered and shaved, the last thing I want is a fragrance that instantly reverses my progress. This won’t get you a date. It won’t impress your significant other—because there isn’t a woman in America who wants her man to smell like this. It doesn’t even work as some highbrow intellectual exercise, because no amount of Ego can override the lizard brain screaming that this smells spoiled and vaguely hazardous. Sloth isn’t just a bad perfume—it’s a joke. Dollar store body spray is more useful, more desirable, more respectable.
2/8/25
Quorum Silver (Antonio Puig)
2/2/25
Elephant (Zoologist)
2/1/25
She Was an Anomaly (Etat Libre d'Orange)
1/29/25
Jaguar for Men (Givaudan)
Jaguar for Men is one of those frags that falls prey to reformulation anxiety, the fear that grips dyed-in-the-wool fragrance fanatics whenever they get their hands on something they've never smelled before. Crafted in 1988 by Thierry Wasser, now of Guerlain, the first version was apparently a musky-woody powerhouse in true '80s fashion. Then the '90s came a-knockin, and at some point in the ensuing decade a perfumer from Mane named Dominique Preyssas reformulated it and stripped out the musky bits, which resulted in something a few ticks closer to the original Polo from '78. I've never smelled either of those formulas; my first experience with Jaguar is from a 2021 bottle manufactured by Lalique Beauty, via a post-Preyssas formula that smells nothing at all like Polo (you can keep Polo) and a heck of a lot like the original Krizia Uomo (thank God).
Well, three parts Krizia Uomo, that is, and one part Sir Irisch Moos, that neon-green stuff from Germany in the little geometric bottle that is all but impossible to find in America nowadays. At this point it's safe to say that the only entity one can truly attribute this fragrance to is the manufacturer, Givaudan, which has supplied the majority of Lalique's perfumes for many years now. Preyssas's formula likely survived the years with minor focus-grouped tweaks here and there. I find it interesting that it smells so dimensional and well made for something so out of fashion (not cheapened), and even more intriguing that it so closely resembles a revered discontinued gem like Krizia Uomo. Why is nobody talking about this? Ever since Krizia went bye-bye, its many fans have been gnashing their teeth, needless given that Jaguar exists. The rich cedar and mossy-resinous textures of the Italian scent are here as well, only Lalique's fragrance is brighter, spicier, with a woody orange citrus note that dominates the profile, something Uomo never had.
There's a bit more vintage Irish Spring Soap to Jaguar, something fresher and more forward-leaning in its style that has me feeling glad I took the plunge on it. The problem with owning this is that I wonder when I'll ever wear it -- my girlfriend dislikes these old earthy masculines, and I don't really blame her. I can imagine what it must be like to spend a few hours around the guy who sprays this one time too many. But then again, there's no denying Jaguar smells fantastic. I don't care that the '80s are over. You know what's never over? Smelling crisp and clean. This isn't a Millennial aquatic or ozonic "blue" thing. This isn't your brother's bottle of Fierce. This won't get you laid on Saturday night. This is the sort of thing you spray on to fight the invading Turks. Masculine, virile, rich, clean, a little heroic, the box and bottle even come in Sherwood Green. Simply perfect.
1/26/25
Y Eau de Parfum (Yves Saint-Laurent)
I’ve never been inclined to delve deeply into the Y range. Everything I’ve read, coupled with the uninspiring look of the bottles, suggests a concoction designed to appease a focus group of Gen Z consumers. It seems like an attempt to be all things to all people, without committing to anything meaningful. Still, I’ll admit I have a soft spot for juniper notes, which prompted me to give Y EDP a try. While I wouldn’t say it left a lasting impression, I don’t regret the experience.
In the 1980s and 1990s—especially the latter—there emerged a category of fragrance that can be described as the “generalist” scent. These were versatile compositions that fit seamlessly into almost any setting, whether professional or casual. They embodied all the prevailing olfactory trends of their time without dwelling too deeply on any single facet. Fragrances like Allure Homme Edition Blanche, the original Allure Homme from 1999, Green Irish Tweed, YSL’s Jazz, anything by Vince Camuto or Jimmy Choo, the Polo Blue range, and even Xeryus by Givenchy are classic examples. These scents served as olfactory multitaskers, scratching itches without committing to one narrative.
The concept of the generalist is inherently adaptable, but it takes decades for its evolution to become apparent. In the 2000s, generalists included offerings like Dior’s Higher and Kenneth Cole’s Black, which still reflected the legacy of the 1990s. In that earlier decade, the generalist DNA was shaped by the dihydromyrcenol revolution ignited by Paco Rabanne Pour Homme, mingled with the musky-spicy tropes of the 1980s. This era gave rise to creations like Nautica (1992), Dolce & Gabbana Pour Homme (1994), Smalto (1998), and even Creed’s Green Valley (1999). These fragrances were designed to be all-encompassing, appealing to a time when most consumers weren’t inclined to amass extensive fragrance collections, and "niche" was still virgin territory.
By the 2010s, the generalist evolved again, this time shaped by advances in technology and shifts in taste. Affordable gas chromatography and the declining costs of previously expensive materials—such as Ambroxan and Hedione—enabled perfumers to craft sophisticated, mass-market generalists with relative ease. Yet, paradoxically, we now inhabit an era of commercial insecurity, where creative ventures are often stifled by a relentless pursuit of guaranteed profits. Fragrance houses hedge their bets on name recognition rather than risking originality. The result is a wave of sanitized, featureless designer scents engineered to appeal to the widest possible audience, their compositions vetted by focus groups and algorithms for maximum market penetration.
As of 2025, the prevailing template for a generalist fragrance includes faintly aquatic, slightly woody, and subtly white-musky elements, often coupled with a conspicuous sweetness and vague gourmand undertones. These blends, meticulously homogenized, aim to mask any creative or budgetary limitations. Y EDP fits this mold almost to a fault. It opens with a pleasant burst of green apple and ginger, transitioning to a juniper and amber heart that feels unexpectedly aromatic and mature. However, the dry-down succumbs to a generic, semi-sweet "candle amber" accord that resists further dissection. My mind, frankly, tunes out. Kind of a letdown after the initial promise here.
You could wear Y EDP and get by just fine. Technically, it’s a well-made fragrance. There’s nothing wrong with it. But it leaves you with a question: Am I wearing this because it resonates with me? Or is it simply a “safe” choice, destined to be forgotten? If it’s the latter, you’ve already answered the question Yves Saint Laurent posed: Y?
1/23/25
Pino Silvestre - New Formula (Parfums Mavive)
1/21/25
Spicebomb Night Vision Eau de Toilette (Viktor & Rolf)
How many iterations of the same fragrance can designers, and even some niche brands, shove onto shelves before the public finally cries foul over the sheer redundancy? With each Eros rehash, I feel an almost primal urge to remind everyone that this cloyingly sweet, painfully overused Calone/Norlimbanol/Ambroxan trifecta was first stamped onto the olfactory map in 1988 with Davidoff Cool Water, and has since morphed into a sort of neon Eros god-monster version of itself.
The contemporary prototype for Spicebomb Night Vision isn’t even Eros, it’s Chanel Allure Homme Sport (2004). A year after the Chanel, we got Joop! Jump, the first spin-off in its lineage. Jump wasn't a blockbuster, but did moderately well, enough to keep the wheels turning for Lancaster and eventually Coty. Fast forward to 2012, and Versace takes a page from the Jump playbook, drops Eros, and strikes gold. Eros was an instant smash, its success spawning a tidal wave of imitators, Night Vision among them.
So, how does Viktor & Rolf’s take stack up? It’s fine, I guess. The opening bursts with green apple, cardamom, and fizzy aldehydes, a fleeting moment of brightness that quickly settles into the syrupy woody amber heart you’ve smelled a dozen times before. There’s a bit of sage and nutmeg in the base that tries to set it apart, adding a faint whiff of distinction, but sophistication? Not so much. I’ll admit it, I like Night Vision. But here’s the thing: it feels like we’ve reached a dead end. They nailed this formula with Jump, and every version since has been a diminishing return. Can it get better? Nah. Just louder.