Aramis 900

Aramis 900 was one of the first of Bernard Chant's compositions that is a modulation of a previous release marketed to gents, here following the success of Aromatics Elixir two years prior. However, the two are not one in the same: a variation on a theme is not merely a "clone" or a "dupe" but can have a character all of its own. Aramis 900 trades the meadow-earthy chamomile of Aromatics Elixir, with the aldehydes mellowed, a brighter green-spicy coriander and the rose pushed more forward, reminding me a bit more of Jean Couturier Coriandre than AE in its top notes. It isn't any wonder I love all three. Soapy, radiant, but also a bit sour as it progresses into the heart, the complete absence of sweetness may read to certain sensibilities as "dated," not "date-worthy", certainly not a "club scent" or a "daily driver" for the youth. It would be a hard sell for sure, but it fits me like a glove. Give me a sour green, rosy chypre any old day over something that makes me smell "like a snack." Trigger warning to formulation nerds: it confounds me why there's so much talk of this (and other Aramis Gentleman's Collection relaunch versions) are "shadows of their former selves." Is it actually a miracle to have pretty much all of them bloom and persist on my skin? The "new" Aramis 900 for one lingers for hours, just long enough for me to feel full satisfaction. I've sampled older versions of all of them, and save for Devin, they are nearly indistinguishable, and even with the Devin, it's a completely solid and wearable effort. But I digress... Aramis 900 dries down into a blissful woody-patchouli base with a warm, slight touch of civet: nothing aggressively animalic, but I don't believe that was the intention. A civet accord (or more often accent) wasn't always meant to be aggressively animalic to begin with and is poorly understood. I'd even argue that certain turned bottles may seem a bit more animalic because of whatever chemical degradation had done to the bases: it's just a theory. This whole topic of olfactory perception in vintages of arguable condition is ripe for discussion. In the meantime, I will enjoy lavishing myself with the brilliant 900.

i really like that initial spray of civet rose and light dry dustyness. in a bit a fresh greenness comes in, lily of the valley. there is warmth to the scent generally, from what must be the civet. and that green fresh floral is pleasant and a wonderful developement. It's quite perfumy. the spicy dry woody dustyness grounds this scent in the earth, and along with some fresh greenery ensures it's masculine. there is a touch of a soapy scent in there faintly, for just a brief second if you look for it. the pleasing rose and fresh floral greenness lifts and a spicy dirtyness comes to the foreground, patchouli, and mixes with the rose before taking over and mixing with the warm civet. later, after not too much time, the spicyness settles and a lightly fruity rose and buttery background remains. pretty good scent really. it has developement and complexity. the scent after spraying is very pleasing, and continues on as it evolves, and it becomes more spicy before settling down. The description on the box says "an addictive, herbal fragrance that embodies tradition with a dash of the unexpected" I am not exactly sure what the unexpected is, perhaps it is the transition from floral to earthy.. when the patchouli comes in. similar vibes from other scents which come to mind are van cleef and arpels pour homme for the rose petal and spice, oscar de larenta pour lui for the floral, and kiehls original musk for the civet. a touch of havana by aramis in terms of the spice. I am quite pleasantly surprised by this purchase. rose, civet, patchouli.. lily of the valley.. wonderful

Oh dear @richmilton - your review including "Gentleman's Collection is very close", only serves to reinforce that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yet you go on to say "vintage is best" which was EXACTLY the point of my review. I've been wearing Aramis 900 in all of its iterations for 40 years. The Gentleman's Collection formulation, although good, was nowhere near as complex as the vintage versions which remained almost unaltered up til 2005. I suspect you haven't smelled Clinique Aromatics - it's widely acknowledged on this website and on many beyond as being the nearest fragrance to original Aramis 900 - same perfumer, similar notes and identical phases from opening to dry down. I'm not a shill, have nothing to sell - "crappy bottles" or otherwise - and my review was a celebration of the vintage version (which you seem to agree with) which is becoming harder to find. I compare it favourably to Clinique Aromatics, which is still easy to source at Clinique counters globally. As for "the latest crap" - there is no new formulation of this fragrance. It's discontinued. Unless you mean Clinique Aromatics; which was launched two years BEFORE Aramis 900 - it's not new and it certainly isn't "crap." The comparison format between two similar fragrances is used widely on Fragrantica, which begs the question; what exactly about my original review did you find to be "BS"? Please do better if you reply/rebut, be factual/knowledgeable and try not to embarrass yourself any more than you already have.

I took the chance recently to do a wrist-to-wrist comparison of my vintage bottle (brown stripy glass with a gold lid) and the current version from the Gentlemen's Collection, and yes indeed I did find them to be slightly different from one another, especially in their openings. Immediately on spraying, the rose note in my vintage is much sharper/shriller/harsher and sweeter than the current formula - frankly at this point the vintage could knock someone out with its strength. The current formula is still a close copy of the original but overall is smoother with a more refined vibe. I also noticed a strong civet note in the current formula that is missing in my vintage formulation - I'm not sure, perhaps the vintage had that civet note originally but it has since disappeared due to the age of my bottle? Anyway, they both settle very quickly into the familiar and excellent woody-mossy-herbal base. The current formula lasts around 6 hours on my skin compared to the 4 hours of the vintage, although it could be explained by ageing of the basenotes in my vintage causing a loss of their potency. Much as I love the vintage and prefer its evocative bottle, I think the current version although smoother is still excellent and perhaps even the better of the two. Good job Estee!

I first smelled Aramis 900 in my childhood. My Father wore it back in the 70's and 80's with his dark suits. I remember liking it back then, and when I was post college I bought my first bottle. I've always considered it a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 scent although in my fragrance wardrobe it also serves my casual side. It is eternally fresh and clean. I don't find it to be an old man's scent or outdated, and(but)I'm only 41. I recently purchased the "Gentleman's Collection" release, and I'm enjoying it all over again. If it had been reformulated, my nose can't tell. The only difference for me is the bottle. I still LOVE it! The scent is not a "flanker" of the original Aramis, and doesn't remind me of it. 900 opens with a clean, green, slightly sweet citrus. Florals take over soon, but the citrus remains throughout. The floral notes are well blended as no single note stands out. It's very crisp and clean, dry and herbal. There is a powdery, almost soapy woodiness to it that I love. I feel great when I wear it. It lasts ten to twelve hours on my skin. In the warmer months it works for me. It doesn't become stale in the heat, but seems to come and go as if it refreshes itself. I like this quality about it. If you have the chance try it. I highly recommend it.