Cerruti 1881 Intense Pour Homme

Not that I expect anyone to care but, as a middle-aged Northern European man, I'm drawn more to classic woody chypres and fougeres heading off in the direction of the barbershop (many of them fragrances my dad might've liked) than to latter-day gourmands etc. I feel they go well with the cooler seasons in my country, with its temperate, often rainy climate. The problem is that I find many of the classics unwearable. Too much moss, musk and/or spice (coumarin?), for instance, and I can find them overpowering and often too animalic, as if I might be spraying on eau de body odour, whether that's just down to the fragrances or partly to my skin chemistry. Worth Pour Homme might be the prime example. Others, such as Tsar, I find excessively soapy and/or powdery, at least in the drydown. I bought a bottle of the original Cerruti 1881 a few years ago and, although I like the smell and find it impressively refined, I haven't worn it very much. I like it more now than I did at first but I still find it a little sharp, soapy-powdery and thin. It's perhaps a little dated in the mossy-manly way and also reminds me of any number of sporty sherbet-lemon fresh-out-of-the-shower colognes from maybe 30 years ago. I've seldom worn it for anything other than a quick burst of casual daytime freshness with a little added funk. All the same, it's a scent that I've almost wanted to like more than I actually have. I've seen great potential there. I therefore blind-bought this Intense flanker on the understanding, from a couple of reviews, that it was similar to the original but perhaps more--well--intense. I couldn't be much happier with my purchase. Now, I do see that it might not be what some people would expect from a flanker bearing the epithet 'Intense'. I think the sillage and longevity are probably similar to those of the original, i.e. by no means extreme. This is not a shoutier version of the original. To me, though, it is indeed more intense--darker/warmer, woodier, spicier, fuller, much muskier and more classically masculine, even though the original fresh, soapy aspect is still obvious. I find it to be like a more wearable take on the original and some of those heavier old classics such as Worth. It's pretty much everything I'd have liked the original to be and as such probably my new favourite Spring/Autumn fragrance when another favourite of mine, L'Eau Bleue D'Issey, seems a touch too heavy or not quite ruggedly woody or masculine enough. Edit: If anything, this is a little too skanky when sprayed directly on my skin in any quantity. I've taken to layering it with the original sometimes. The two are similar enough for that to work very well. This is definitely one for walk-through misting (my default setting) but even then it's probably best to err absolutely on the side of caution and not go above maybe three sprays. Never again would I mist a work shirt with this or wear this in warm weather, as my smelling like some kind of stubborn subtropical rainforest fire just the once was enough for me, let alone everyone around me at work.

An indeed more intense version of the original. Less citrusy, more piney & woody and overall a better performance while keeping the backbone of the original. Its a classy, manly, fresh fragrance of modern times. I like it a lot!!!

A beginning is strong, very fresh, reminds me ocean breeze. With time it smells better and better. After about 5 minutes 1881 Intense opens itself and reveals the notes of citrus and forrest. Very tasty, fresh. Smells like Davidoff's classic Cool Water. To me - it's wonderful to wear it at noon, on sunny day. A big advantage of this scent is it's deepness and ability to change itself in time. Unfortunately, when it fades out, it becomes very bland.

Always loved original 1881 and never thought smth could replace it in their own league I was wrong 1881 Intense has absolutely same DNA as his father but it's warmer, deeper and the way more wearable in modern days Such a nice surprise ! Luv it !

Nice strong masculine fragrance with not bad longevity.