From Pyrgos
9/8/25
A Big Announcement
8/23/25
Is Dunhill Fresh Creed's Green Valley on the Cheap?
Green Valley is my favorite fragrance. It’s the most beautiful scent I’ve ever smelled, and nothing else has truly come close. Creed’s Original Vetiver is in the same neighborhood and gave me a similar sense of awe, but Green Valley went further: richer, lusher, denser, more expansive, more complex, and unforgettable.
Since Creed discontinued it back in 2010, cruelly in my opinion, I’ve been searching for something comparable. Nothing really measures up. Paul Smith Man is maybe halfway there if you squint, but it’s still a stretch. Dior Fahrenheit (the original, not the flankers) also shares some grassy-floral, green qualities, but its defining petrol-violet “barrel” accord dominates too strongly for real comparison. I’ve read Dua Brand’s Vert Instinct is the closest clone, but it’s pricey, and I don’t trust Dua. They don’t seem like true perfumers, and I’m not comfortable buying from a company that outsources its wares.
Recently, though, I pulled out my bottle of Dunhill Fresh. This one’s odd. Released twenty years ago by Maurice Roucel, the name suggests citrus brightness, soapiness, maybe aquatic freshness. Instead, it opens with a muted violet accord reminiscent of Fahrenheit, only blurred, as if Roucel draped a foggy green filter over it. And here’s the twist: it reminds me of Green Valley. At first, I thought it was just the Fahrenheit overlap, but when I went back to my empty Green Valley bottle and sniffed the atomizer, I noticed something uncanny. The residue, oils clinging to the glass, gives off a rich violet and tea-like aroma that matches the heart of Dunhill Fresh almost exactly. It feels as if Roucel captured that hidden aspect of Green Valley but left out its grassy-bright overture, likely because Dunhill wasn’t paying Creed’s budget for natural materials and there was no realistic way for him to replicate them. Since he's a true genius, Roucel didn't even try.
Dunhill Fresh doesn’t smell like Green Valley -- let’s be clear about that. What it does smell like is the semi-evaporated dregs of Green Valley. There’s something in its structure that carries a mysterious resemblance. In the far drydown, ten hours later, when I smell where I sprayed, a familiar fruity cadence emerges, followed by a soft grassy lilt. It’s faint, a ghost of an accord, but it brings the comparison into focus. At that point Dunhill actually does echo the Creed.
It’s a tricky comparison because Green Valley has often been likened to other Creeds, especially Green Irish Tweed and Silver Mountain Water. Back in 2011, when I was still wearing my bottle of GV, I understood the SMW comparison but never the GIT one. To this day, I can’t see the resemblance. GV and GIT are worlds apart. With SMW, the link is clearer: GV carries an accord of blackcurrant and warm citrus, just as SMW blends currant with mandarin orange. But in GV that accord is just one thread in a much larger tapestry, while SMW remains leaner and far simpler.
Dunhill Fresh is also lean and simple, though it handles its plush accords sparingly, which is rare in perfumery. Somehow Roucel bottled the soul of Green Valley, but the soul alone isn’t enough. To understand what GV truly was, you need the bitter wildflowers rising through fields of tall grass, the gingery-bright shimmer breaking through a misty morning of sunlight in liquid form. Roucel couldn’t capture that, and perhaps no one could. Yet one has to wonder if he wasn’t the shadow hand behind GV itself, since to this day no perfumer has ever been officially credited for its creation.
8/16/25
Violetas Francesas Cologne, Adult Formula (Affa Corp.)
8/13/25
Green Energy (Givenchy)
Many reviewers describe the fragrance as a “disappointing” green, lacking in true green notes and leaning instead on fruity and floral hues. Green fragrances generally fall into two categories: bitter-vegetal or sweet-floral (sometimes fruity-floral), and the consensus here points to the latter. Indeed, Green Energy -- aka the portmanteau “Greenergy” -- opens like a synthetic spin on Green Irish Tweed, with a lush accord of basil, cardamom, mandarin orange, lavender, Iris pallida, violet leaf, spearmint, and dihydromyrcenol, accented by traces of natural galbanum for sweetness. It smells surprisingly crisp and rich for the style, and promises great things. Also, the smoothness of the blend is somewhat reminiscent of the also-discontinued and now impossible to find Xeryus (1986). At this stage of the fragrance, it is without argument utterly and entirely "green" in smell.
Within three hours, most of these green notes have stepped back, bridged by an unusual French marigold accord -- uniquely resinous-green and bittersweet, with spicy and ambery nuances. This is where I find Green Energy most interesting. Alberto Morillas and Ilias Ermenidis built a fairly simple base of synthetic sandalwood, cardamom seed, and coriander, with faint traces of basil and vanilla for herbal sweetness. To my nose, the coriander dominates. It reminds me somewhat of Paul Smith, but the fragrance as a whole also recalls Pino Silvestre Green Generation Him, itself distantly related to GIT by way of a more herbal take on the lavender/orange blossom of Eternity for Men. For this type of green fragrance, the dihydromyrcenol, violet leaf, and iris accord is everywhere.
I get a full workday out of Green Energy, and its base of “cool” spices is simple yet distinctive enough to satisfy my yen for abstract greens. Paul Smith is simpler and more cardamom-forward, with more vegetal, grassy-green facets in the top and middle, while Bowling Green and the original Pino Silvestre aim for a more rustic herbal take. Green Energy, like many of these, is entirely unisex, though women tend to opt for even more overtly floral or fruity compositions instead, which is kind of a shame. I’m happy to nurse my 1.7 oz bottle while it lasts; the supply will likely dry up, and prices could again soar into the upper ozone, but I’ll probably reach for the other scents I’ve mentioned before the Givenchy when I want a true green-out.
8/9/25
Grass (Lush)
8/8/25
Grey Flannel Without Oakmoss and Treemoss
8/7/25
"Professor" Dave Explains That He's a Fool: Why Truthseekers in Fragrance and All Other Popular Interests Should Avoid YouTube
In the video, former SCUHS instructor (not professor) Dave contends that theoretical physicist Avi Loeb is a “fraud.” First, I want to comment on who I think Dave Farina is. California, it seems, has devolved into a swirling toilet bowl of intellectual and moral debris, as evidenced by the fact that this man managed to be hired as a teacher at a private college there. From June 2010 to October 2013, he was an instructor in organic chemistry at Southern California University of Health Sciences. After that, his career thins out. He rebrands himself as a “science communicator” with a YouTube channel. His endeavors seem to target the low-hanging fruit of flat-earthers and creationists. But I imagine he’s making six figures more than he ever did as a teacher, so more power to him. I hope he continues to succeed on YouTube -- at least for the sake of his family.
However, I hope he fails spectacularly at slandering undisputed geniuses like Avi Loeb. In his video, Dave drills down on Loeb’s claim that Oumuamua -- the interstellar object that passed through our solar system on a hyperbolic trajectory in 2017 and has since vanished into space -- was possibly, and more likely than anything else mankind has ever encountered, an alien artifact of non-natural origins. Dave suggests that in the years since this unique phenomenon occurred, Loeb has trafficked in widely debunked claims about the object’s origins in a cynical cash grab that defies the scientific community and serves mostly to inflate his own public profile and bank account.
I’m going to surprise my readers, and possibly even Dave himself (hi, Dave), by saying that the organic chemistry guy's contentions aren't entirely out of bounds. Loeb is a public figure, and he holds controversial scientific and social science views that make him fair game for pointed criticism -- even when those critiques are thin and poorly conceived. This is America, and here we allow for public dissent on all reasonable and rational arguments. Therefore, I have no problem with Dave saying he disagrees with a theoretical physicist who has made a few million dollars on his notoriety as a supporter of the extraterrestrial explanation for Oumuamua. If I were a fellow traveler physicist in elite scientific circles, I’d probably have a basketful of my own criticisms of what Loeb has been doing since 2017. Loeb would probably expect that of me.
My problem with Dave’s video stems from a conversation I had with him in the comments section -- since deleted for the second time -- in which it became disturbingly clear that he had done very little reading on Oumuamua prior to posting his video and likely knew even less about Avi Loeb. Let’s be clear about who Loeb is, starting with Wikipedia:
"Loeb is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the International Academy of Astronautics. In 2015, he was appointed as the science theory director for the Breakthrough Initiatives of the Breakthrough Prize Foundation. He is an Israeli and American theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology. Loeb is the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University, where since 2007 he has been Director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Center for Astrophysics.[1][2][3][4][5][6] He chaired the Department of Astronomy from 2011 to 2020, and founded the Black Hole Initiative in 2016."
And from Loeb's 2021 book, Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth:
"At the time of this writing, I serve as chair of Harvard University's Department of Astronomy, founding director of Harvard's Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation within the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, chair of the Breakthrough Starshot Initiative, chair of the Board of Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies, a member of the advisory board for the digital platform Einstein: Visualize the Impossible from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in Washington, DC.
In his book, Loeb posits that the reaction to Omuamua in the scientific community was a bit slapdash and inconclusive, to say the least. He writes:
"Indeed, mere weeks after the object's discovery, in mid-November 2017, the International Astronomical Union -- the organization that names newly identified objects in space -- changed its designation for 'Oumuamua' for the third and final time. Initially, the IAU had called it C/2017 U1; the C was for comet. Then it switched over to A/2017 U1; the A was for asteroid. Finally, the IAU declared it 1I/2017 -- the 'I' stood for interstellar." (Loeb 5)
All of this is well established in the scientific community, but apparently not in Dave's world. In his video on Loeb, Dave confidently claims that Oumuamua is “widely considered” by experts to be an exocomet. I asked him, “If Oumuamua is widely considered to be an exocomet, why isn’t it officially classified as one?” He shot back: “It is.” I replied, “No, it isn’t,” and cited the actual evidence.
That’s when Dave’s composure cracked. He resorted to name-calling, declared that none of what I said was true, and that I was stupid. I doubled down with the facts. Then, in the interest of accuracy, I called him a complete moron, because at that point, it was irrefutable. If you make a whole video purporting to “debunk” Avi Loeb, a Harvard scientist with endless credentials who has worked with the US government on international defense projects, and simultaneously botch the most basic classification facts about the object in question, you’re not just wrong -- you’re proudly, performatively, Olympic-level wrong.
Predictably, this sent Dave into full damage-control mode. What does an idiot say and do when confronted with basic facts? He began deleting my comments, then went silent for half an hour, probably to Google “Oumuamua” like a college freshman cramming for a quiz he forgot was tomorrow. When he returned, still having scrubbed most of my replies, he opened with: “Hey worthless shitstain, Google ‘Oumuamua is an exocomet,’ see that every single source says yes, it is, and then come back and apologize. There is no ‘C1’ designation. That’s not a thing. You’re the dumbest loser alive.”
This was… unwise. Yes, if you punch that phrase into Google, the algorithm helpfully regurgitates the “widely considered” myth, and leaves out the fact that official classification tells the whole story. But switch to any other AI engine (I used Grok), and the result is the opposite: Oumuamua is not considered to be an exocomet, although one hypothesis suggests it might be. Those sources -- the same ones Loeb references in his own book -- also explain exactly why, and none of this has changed since 2021. Oumuamua remains classified as an “interstellar object,” with no consensus on what it actually is.
I posted all this back in the comments, roasted him for the error, and told him I expected an apology, though I figured he’d just delete everything again. Instead, after a strange pause where I imagine him staring blankly at his screen, he undeleted the entire thread. Maybe he thought it made me look bad. Spoiler: it didn’t. At least for that evening, the exchange stood. Since then, surprise surprise, it’s mostly gone. I could go back and dismantle him all over again, but why bother? He’ll just hit delete, pretend it never happened, and keep his deeply flawed Loeb video up for the next unsuspecting viewer.
You might wonder why Dave Farina is so invested in attacking a theoretical physicist. I have a theory, supported by his own video. Near the end, he drifts from criticizing Loeb’s scientific claims into criticizing Loeb’s ethnicity, launching into a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist, and antisemitic screed against the “Zionist physicist” he believes Loeb to be. I was waiting for this moment, because as Dave went on and on about Loeb supposedly grifting the public with his views on Oumuamua, I realized the video never actually addresses the fact that Oumuamua isn’t categorized by astronomers as a comet. Instead, he sidesteps the interstellar object entirely and goes straight to ridiculing Loeb for getting frustrated that other scientists aren’t as eager to embrace his extraterrestrial theories.
The video’s thin treatment of Loeb’s actual science tipped me off that Dave’s animus likely has little to do with comets, aliens, or scientific integrity. Dave appears, at least to me, to have a problem with this particular Jew. Why else bring up the war between Israel and Hamas, and go on a tangent about how monstrous Israel supposedly is (and Loeb by proxy) for “murdering children” in Palestine, when Loeb has nothing to do with the war? Why even bother mentioning it? I think Dave’s entire video is built on an underlying hatred of Israel, a misguided romanticizing of Palestine, and perhaps even a soft spot for Hamas -- though I can’t confirm or deny his views on that, because he’s been too vague, at least in this video (and I’m not about to dig through his channel to find out). My suspicions seem supported by the fact that he’s been banned from X for antisemitic content (link here). Pretty sad for a man his age, and a searing indictment of my generation.
Here’s what I'm getting at with all this: if you know nothing about Avi Loeb and then watch Dave’s video, you could easily walk away thinking you’ve been educated about a dangerous fraud looking to scam you out of your money and intellect. Dave frames Loeb’s career and views on Oumuamua through a very selective lens, cherry-picking moments where Loeb is arguably at his worst in debates with peers, and then claiming the entire scientific community rejects him outright. If you’re unfamiliar with Loeb’s actual claims, or why he holds them, you’ll probably buy it -- Dave is good at looking like he knows what he’s talking about. Hucksters usually are.
But if you know even a sliver about Avi Loeb before hitting play, the cracks in Dave’s argument show within the first five minutes. My exchange with him would still be up if he’d actually won, but I mopped the floor with him. He seemed so embarrassed by my comments that he didn’t know what to do -- faced with people reading, in real time, how I’d exposed him on the simple facts of comet prefixes (sorry Dave, they’re real), he couldn’t decide whether to delete my comments or leave them up in the hope someone might think I looked stupid. Funniest of all was when he told me to Google my information and apologize -- only for me to come back with countervailing evidence so specific to Oumuamua that it was impossible to refute. The specific “C” designation I mentioned in our conversation applies to anomalous comets that pass through the solar system only once -- which is exactly what Oumuamua did. It's right there on Google!
This problem isn’t unique to Dave Farina. I’ve subscribed to and regularly watched many prominent fragrance YouTubers over the past decade. Plenty of them are harmless personalities with respectful content, so skepticism is unnecessary. But many are young men in their early to mid-twenties who pontificate about fragrance “notes,” “longevity,” and “best seasons.” While you can take that with a grain of salt, you should also be wary of the context -- just as Dave’s viewers are misled by his juvenilely misinformed content, an endless diet of inexperienced reviewers spewing unfiltered opinions can misdirect an uncritical audience. Much of it is unintentional, but the effect can still be damaging.
I would extend my experiences with Dave and these unnamed fragrance YouTubers to pretty much any popular YouTuber. Take “Babish” (Andrew Rea), for example, who "reviews" everyday food items like Campbell’s Soup and extra virgin olive oil. In his EVOO video, he covers dozens of brands (with a few conspicuous omissions), and I settled in hoping to learn something. Within five minutes -- my standard metric for spotting nonsense -- it was obvious “Babish” doesn’t know a thing about olive oil, and worse, he’s teaching his ignorance. He tells viewers you shouldn’t cook with EVOO because its smoke point is too low (false), and jokes about not swallowing samples because he wants to “live longer than a week” -- implying, falsely, that EVOO is unhealthy.
He then spends most of the video swishing and spitting mouthfuls of oil, pre- and post-reviewing each sample with comments like, “And here we have another yellow olive oil that smells the same,” and, “Okay, that one tastes just like the last one -- these all taste the same.” Between awkward fits of giggles -- oddly effeminate for a grown man, and sometimes forced for effect -- he ends up ranking the oils like a blind man, conveying no useful information at all. For entertainment, fine. For actual education, worthless. He’d have done far better hiring an EVOO expert to taste and explain.
As I said at the start, we live in an online culture dominated by know-nothings with just enough talent and tech to keep their clickbait channels afloat. I don’t care what Dave Farina does with his channel -- this is America, and he can run it however he likes. But that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to tell his viewers the truth. Spreading falsehoods, edited and reframed to serve personal (and political) opinions against all available data, isn’t just irresponsible -- it’s damaging to everyone who buys into it. Think about how many viewers leave “Professor Dave Explains” believing he’s a real professor delivering researched facts. Think about the crap being spewed into the world.
Based on his Avi Loeb video, I’m left with one conclusion of my own -- entirely subjective, but worth stating: I think Dave Farina is the fraud. If he ever debated Avi Loeb face-to-face instead of sniping from the comfort of his living room, he’d be exposed as uninformed. And I suspect Google might think twice about letting his content pollute the public sphere.
8/6/25
Aura for Men (Jacomo)
8/5/25
Is Halston 1-12 the Most "Natural" American Cheapie On the Market?
![]() |
Quite an impressive list. |
Ingredient | Why It's Used | |
---|---|---|
Alcohol Denat. | Solvent, carrier | Helps dissolve fragrance oils and evaporates quickly, delivering the scent. |
8/4/25
The Outer Limits of Perfume Orthodoxy
![]() |
"The Greatest Green Scent" |
7/27/25
Jōvan Musk for Men Signature Edition (Coty)
I've always felt that Jōvan Musk for Men smelled like narcissus, but I was never able to find anyone who confirmed it, so I kept the thought to myself. Smelling it again today, I'm reminded of the cultural reset buttons we press when we need a break from ourselves. For example, I've become a staunch believer in the Mediterranean diet and generally stick to the rigors of vegetables, lentils, olive oil, and fish. Yet every once in a very blue moon, I veer off course to indulge in a cheeseburger or two and have my faith in humanity restored. Likewise, one might adhere with religious fervor to the echelons of vaunted niche, only to seek solace in stealing a sniff of some drugstore elixir that time forgot.
Jōvan Musk for Men Signature Edition is a fragrance with no traceable identity, like a hitchhiker without an I.D. who simply stepped out of his dimension and into ours. There is no internet record of this fragrance, and I have no idea when it was released. Even Parfumo doesn’t have a page for it. The seller of my bottle didn’t include the box, and from what I’ve gleaned on eBay, the box doesn’t tell you anything anyway, so that’s a dead end. I imagine this was a 1990s or early 2000s special edition release for the holidays or something similar, perhaps with only one or two runs before being phased out, but who knows? On skin and on paper, Signature Edition smells very close to my 2017 bottle of Musk, almost imperceptibly different. It has a slightly deeper, richer, and more animalic nuance, but only by a hair. This richness feels like the core components of chemistry-lab musk, flower-child florals, and apothecary soap are better balanced, fused in a way that creates a smooth, mellow, retro experience: that slightly tarnished brightness of an olfactory brass gong catching the rays of a setting sun.
Signature Edition reminds me of how far afield from the original formula Coty has taken Jōvan Musk for Men. It sits somewhere in the intersection of the raunchier 1970s version and the soapy-clean 2000s one, straddling qualities of both without fully embodying either. This style of fragrance has become incredibly difficult to wear nowadays, especially around women. But then again, I can think of several luxury brands that would pay good money to release something this legibly raunchy, so it’s hard to knock Jōvan. A bottle of Musk Oil cost $25 in 1973 when adjusted for inflation, so it was still a cut above Old Spice and Brut, making it the accomplished dad cologne of the era. The difference is that a '70s dad could get laid wearing this, while I’ll probably repel every woman in town.