1932 Eau de Parfum

My 2.5oz bottle of 1932 has arrived yesterday... I specifically purchased it from a collector and it is THE one produced in 2016. Has it been sprayed before? Yes there is a small dent in it - oh but the juice... It has macerated, it has darkened. Yes, that's right even this absolute sparkling sparkly beauty that 1932 is can actually macerate and darken. It is now a very saturated orangeish in color and in terms of longevity it's a BEAST. 5 hours after spritzing some on my wrist it was absolutely there, completely intact, as if I sprayed it mere 5 minutes ago, unchanged, and not the mere "aftertaste" of it or the base notes - but the scent itself. Only Chanel can make a jasmine-iris-musk Eau de Parfum that lasts like no other perfume on the market. Seriously. I'm just going to add, because I already technically wrote a review about it below, that when I first tried 1932 from a sample it was a hit, instant hit. I never even let 10 seconds pass and I knew that it was THE most beautiful perfume I have ever smelled. I will add that I absolutely love some other Chanel perfumes, my signature is #18, but in terms of beauty - 1932 takes the cake. It wafts like this ultra feminine, OVERLY beautiful of a fragrance. It completely knocked me off my socks. My recent discoveries and obsessions include Boy, Jersey and Bois des Iles. But in terms of beauty, the beauty queen is 1932. It's beyond gorgeous. The iris in it reminds me of original Chance. Just one aspect of it reminds me of Chance - but 1932 is void of patchouli and does not ever turn sour or tangy from citrus. 1932 may have grapefruit but it is unnoticeable to the nose. If there is citrus in it - then it's undetectable - it may be there to keep it lifted and to make the florals bright. People comparing it to 31 Rue Cambon - that's a long stretch. 31 Rue Cambon is frankincense all the way. 31 Rue Cambon is even "Churchy" to me, 1932 is floral nectar - but never generic or boring. I believe 1932 is what the Garden of Eden smelled like. It's funny yesterday "just for fun" I googled exactly this: "1932 dupe" - among these generic oil companies, AI has suggested that for an alternative one should consider Chanel's own Paris-Venise. Funny to me - because I had already said that. They are two different perfumes - 1932 remains "cooler" because it is void of Venise's bright neroli BUT the overall fragrance type/structure and for similar iris-musk effect Venise is a great alternative. I have and love both. I am not kidding, 1932 is a beast in terms of staying power. Ok, for personal enjoyment I often Google and read reviews on some of my favorite perfumes. Authors and perfume bloggers always write such beautiful articles on each of these perfumes. They put everything in beautiful words, it's a joy to read. They sound very informed and often as if writing these reviews on fragrances could even be their main profession. They sound very professional is what I'm trying to say. And in one of these professional, looked up to by me, perfume blogs I read one author write a beautiful article on 1932 but they absolutely dogged it in therms of its longevity. They said the scent is absolutely GORGEOUS but they didn't realize it until 2 am when it was wafting from their thrown on the chair sweater the previous evening. And that when they put it on their wrist the evening before, 5 minutes later and it was gone and they forgot they even put it on. At this point I stopped reading. I sprayed 1932 on each wrist at 6pm last night, and some on my neck and hair. I was in a scent bubble all evening - of course I was. But when I put my nose to my wrist at 11pm the fragrance was just there, the very SAME way as if I had just applied it. When I woke up in the morning is when I got to enjoy the nude and stripped down base of this perfume. Very often when purchasing "designer" perfume and even more so when obtaining a niche one, we expect it to last a good while. After all "real" perfume - not some drugstore body mist - can get if not very then the very least just costly - our mind automatically expects for a designer fragrance to last. That is NOT the case most of the time. If we get 2 hours of a nice scent bubble - that's it. Chanel is true MAGIC. It restored my faith. Yes, Les Exclusifs aren't cheap at all, but they do deliver. 1932 is void of patchouli yet it lasts all day. It just does.

Every single time I smelled a Chanel perfume I always got: highest quality fragrance, well blended, always good and never bad. Period. Most became loves. Even 1957 which turned out not to be my favorite I still thought was well constructed. Very well at that. But that's a review for another day. Well when I first sniffed 1932 I thought it smelled like THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FRAGRANCE I have ever had the pleasure of putting my nose to. How could anyone not love that? I mean if there is a handful of people who despise Coco Mademoiselle because the patch is too strong and to this and that well 1932 puts an end to all that stipulation. I naturally gravitate towards sweet like most humans do but to give an example Comete had that sweet saccharine note that scratched it right off my want list. I still have to admit Comete is a great fragrance - just not my favorite. 1932 is just beautifully beautiful. Powdery and crisp. Delicate and strong. I just can't describe it in any other way that super super nice and pleasant. As a hobby and to relax I read a lot of fragrance reviews. Especially about the ones that interest me. Someone wrote about 1932 that it has a vintage touch. Personally I was surprised? How? Where? To me fragrance with a vintage feel could be #5 or #22 - especially if they are perhaps in their vintage formulas. 1932 is not deep enough floral nor does it have any heavy elements to be considered that in my opinion. It smells like a modern creation - of that I am so sure. But testing it today something donned on me - maybe it's the powderiness of it. The fragrance itself is nowhere being dated nor does it have any vintage feel per se, but it does have powdery elements and it's very romantic. I could definitely imagine Marilyn Monroe wearing this beauty - so there is that. I keep trying and trying to see the resemblance to 31 Rue Cambon - 1932 is more fruity and floral. It is in the "middle" of the spectrum. Say Gardenia is a 0 overall composition intensity (not the actual strength and projection) but it's a white floral and 31 Rue Cambon is a 9 - starting to be dark, and Coromandel would be a 10 on our scale, then 1932 is something like a 6. It's not a white or super light pastel but it's not a dark fragrance either. It's intense with it's gorgeous iris and vetiver. Sillage and projection and lasting power are as expected from Chanel - really good. Suggestion for people who can't get to 1932 because of it's steep price tag - I would snag Paris-Venise. Although totally different fragrances they both share something - romantic powdery heart a' la Chanel. In 1932 the iris is even more prominent, in Paris-Venise it's still very much there, very much a pillar to the composition - but the overall effect is much softened. 1932 iris is sharper. Also it just depends on who seeking and what they are seeking from 1932. If it's the iris + powdery + floral MINUS Chanel patch and they are trying to avoid spending so much $$$ - then I would recommend Paris-Venise to scratch that itch. Personally I need both. Personally I am on a lifelong mission to acquire as many beautiful Chanel perfumes as I can. What can I say? I love Chanel.

I had some kind of connection with this perfume before I even had it, like I used to have with almost all perfumes which I buy blindly. I don't know how it happens but first it's just a feeling that I would love the scent. After that I start to read everything possible about it and I have some kind of scent in my head, how it would smell. I close my eyes, I breathe deeply and I imagine it in my nose and in my brain. 1932 is everything which I was imagining. Beautiful crispy uplifting aldehydes with a hint of citruses in the opening, there is no Pear in it. Very delicate flowers are playing hide and seek with Iris which is overpowering the other florals from time to time but between times it hides itself and you can get innocent whiffs of the paltry yet indulgent fresh flower bouquet. I can't tell those flowers apart, it's like a pastel coloured flower painting where all the pigments are faded because of a lot of water. The complex base is that style which Chanel does well - clean vibes, among others white Musk, Sandalwood and a hint of Vanilla. Roughly divided there are three kind of powdery scents for me. The one is an abstract feeling of the modern loose powder, soft, clean, delicate and fluffy. The second one is a smell of a baby powder. I have encouraged people to buy one bottle of it if they don't know how it smells. It's a small investment to know that beloved and hated style of perfumes. The third one is a smell of an old powder which was mostly scented with Iris. The powdery smell in 1932 is the last one. It's that Chanel's well known Iris smell combined with aldehydes. Glamorous, sparkling, dry, a little bit shy and bewitching. Not so dry and cold than La Pausa but dry anyway accompanied by other beautiful flowers to add light pink and even light yellow and green colour to the baby blue and violet. This perfume is utterly tender, it easily gets buried among other scents. Only to try to wear it at my home is a mistake - if my intention is to enjoy it to the fullest. After I got this scent I worn it at home and asked an opinion of it from my husband. He said that it's nothing special and it's boring. Next day I worn it at the totally empty gym. He came near me and was asking "what is this amazing scent". This is best when worn in an air conditioned area. It's great outside as well but honestly it shines in clean air indoors whether it's the gym or the office. If you have tried this in some big department store there is a huge possibility that you didn't get the right character out of it. That is not only too full of different kind of scents but too noisy as well. Believe it or not it matters as well. Thank you for reading, I hope my review was helpful. I would appreciate a lot if you want to follow me on IG and/or YouTube (English subtitles): @ninamariahperfumes It gives me a lot of motivation to write more. 🤗

mmmmm the interpretation of 1932 edp of Spring time in Grasse, France is total perfection!! Imagine picnicking at the flower orchards in Grasse, and eventually went into a bit of rest in a forest fills with dry woods no sight of smelly oakmoss, small river in sight and end the day with sweaty body after running around flower orchards! Les Exclusifs de Chanel 1932 edp opens with familiar notes of Estee Lauder Pleasures fresh-after-rain-floral-bouquets but much much more natural smelling,non-cloying, intermingling with iris-jasmine for the whole duration of 8hrs (on my skin), after that stage comes in totally different smells of woodiness that is such unique to Chanel house which is expensive-smelling, smooth-creamy vanilla but not overbearing at all. After 13hrs the final stage comes in, here comes the musk! Its amazing I could smell Kiehl's original musk in the final stage! And it stays forever as long as I didn't wash away with soap .. HOW AMAZING! I was speechless as I hated floral fragrance my whole life but now thanks forever to Chanel Les Exclusifs line they changed my mind 360°. As this fragrance is categorized under "floral-woody-musk" I never expect that it has 3 distinct olfactory stage that blooms at total different timing and that blows my mind. And this perfume really fits for spring time like having picnic outdoor, but nonetheless I tested this on crisp autumn day and the sillage/projection is quite soft but when entered climate-controlled building I would still catch some whiffs of it strong and strengthen by the woodsy base. I would say 1932 edp is not unique in a scentual way, but worth paying for the full bottle as I never had such natural-smelling, non-cloying, and long-lasting floral notes in any other floral perfumes. And overall this scent smells expensive like any other of this line. (I tested this perfume from 8am til 1am on quite mid-cold autumn day, and I did not wash my skin with soap while bathing in order not to remove the remains on my skin and I went to bed to smell it to next day. I definitely will try again to wear this during spring time to check on the notes and its sillage/projection.) P.S** ANY fragrance would smells great on a non-sweaty human skin, so purchase with confidence if you are non-sweaty much as my skin ;p SCENT - 10 (NATURAL SMELLING) UNIQUE - NONE LONGEVITY - 10 (more than 20hrs) SILLAGE - intimate in cold climate, moderate in hot climate. PROJECTION - moderate in hot/cold climate.

I was prepared for the worst after reading a string of somewhat negative reviews here on Fragrantica. So after aquiring a bottle of 1932 for a great price, I braced myself for disappointment. Instead I was instantly mesmerized by the beautiful sweet pear in the aldehydic opening. It is fruity without being cloying. The florals are beautifully blended. Others have gone into great detail comparing 1932 to other CHANEL fragrances and detailing perfume notes so I won't. I have many CHANEL's in my perfume wardrobe. 1932 is a welcome addition. Update - This is a beautiful perfume for spring wear. As others have mentioned the aldeyhydes have been dialed back and the pear combined with the citrus keep it sparkling. The Iris is beautiful and the jasmine adds a bit of sweetness. 1932 has No 5 and No 22 vibes but softened. I could wear 1932 daily where as No 5 and No 22 are a bit more challenging for me to wear every day even though I really like them both. I think I'm going to have to get the largest bottle of 1932. I want to try the extrait also.

From the starry mosaic of the Aubazine abbey where Gabrielle Chanel spent part of her childhood to the glow of the Paris night sky, hence the great love for Byzantine-inspired jewelery and colored glass crosses. The comet in particular has always had a special meaning for Mademoiselle. In 1932, he chose it as one of the motifs in the legendary Bijoux de Diamants high jewelery collection, to sublimate the innate luminosity of diamonds. A dazzling triumph captured in this precious fragrance, with facets of jasmine, iris and vetiver. A fragrance that embodies Art Deco reminiscences, elegant boudoirs invaded by floral notes of rare beauty. Hyper feminine fragrance of great charm.

This perfume satisfied a need I didn’t know I had. I’m not usually a Chanel perfume gal (let’s just say that way too many teenage girls were running around in the early 2000s wearing Coco or Chance- ruined it for me). But this fragrance, this is something. This is a clean, fresh little floral that will make you sparkle. This has just enough aldehydes to make it Chanel, but nowhere near enough to make you smell like your grandma. This is what I want to wear with a crisp white collar shirt and oversized pearl earrings. I layer it with body lotion that has a proper lotiony smell- just clean vibes all around. This is my next full bottle purchase.

Such a beautiful smell. I love it, don't know why people find this boring. 1932 is a sparkling perfumey pear vetiver smell at the opening on my skin. It loses the sparkling facets after about 20 mins into the dry down. The duration of the time is powdery Iris a bit, makeup (lipstick) like with a soft (Tibetan) incense and sweetened vanilla. I find this scent beautiful for work or dressed neat, sharp, and comfortable in the early fall (October) still warm and sunny with enough warmth and smokiness for a cool night.

In the same category of exclusifs that most oldheads consider underwhelming or lacking substance (comete, beige, 1957.) if you struggle to appreciate vintage or 'dated' scent profiles like no 5, coromandel and cambon. it's pretty and delicate....would buy if it was a similar price point to mademoiselle because that's what its reminiscent of.

I smell all the notes of this perfume at some point in its development, including the gorgeous jasmine, the aldehydes, the iris/vanilla creaminess, and the woody/musky base. For those who are sensitive to such things, it might be a touch indolic at times. Overall a stunner.

I’m not into chanel at all but this perfume is an exception, this smells so clean, so powdery, so soft and classy like you got out of shower and after u wear linen or cashmere and boom you are the most cleanest person in the world.

Welcome spring with this beautiful fragrance that is so uplifting 🌻 usually i like perfumes that is sandalwood and vanilla based, i love wintery smells, and this chanel precious bottle was a great surprise for me.

Beautiful. This is like a softer version of 31 Rue Cambon EDP. Elegant, restrained, great for the office. So chic. Longevity more than 12 hours on my skin. Sillage is soft.

The pear scent in the opening is realistic and dominant. Love the powdery texture and Chanel vibe.

I really like this. Stronger and a bit different than your normal Exclusif. Really nice.

theres a bit of skanky sexiness in this which is intriguing. very human like

I swear, every time I smell this perfume it smells different! I tend to get two "types" of scent profiles from this perfume. 1. Cooler weather - a simple, pear-like, fruity floral With a hint of the Chance series as well after the dry down This "profile" is absolutely office-appropriate to me, and very pretty 2. Warmer weather - or maybe "sweatier skin" - makes it smell like 31 Rue Cambon to me! But a lighter version of it, slightly more office appropriate The last time I tried this, it smelled exactly like 31 RC to me, and made me a little sad that I had two similar perfumes in my collection. It wasn't what I had smelled at first that made me decide it was worth adding to my collection. After having let it sit on my perfume shelf for months, I tried it again today - cooler day, showered, not sweaty at all - and now I'm getting the office-appropriate fruity floral vibes everyone is describing. So strange!

Initial impressions: While 31 rue cambon edp may represent couture for Chanel,1932 has that same couture feel but for jewelry though I did not get any metallic note from this. This is a very 'perfumy' fragrance in the sense that i get a lot of lipstick smell from this may be due to the iris. The next notes quite apparent to me are the aldehydes, sweet florals and musk. I fully appreciate that the aldehydes here have the similar quality/presence that's there in No.5 and 22 both of which I immensely enjoy. Got the grapefruit and fruitiness but no pear as such for top notes. 1932 is also creamy after 15 mins and strongly resembles no.5 body creme/lotion. Its good but somewhat lacks character in comparison to 31 rue cambon. I would not put it as a contender for the Ernest Beaux creations but for Jacques Polge standard it is not mind blowing but still very pleasant. Way way over-priced at the moment.

I have both EdT and EdP. They are like 2 different scents. EdT goes towards orrisroot-aldehyde- flowers and EdP goes towards flowerfruitywoody notes. In the EdP the opening with Pear and Grape is dominant for about 20 minutes, then the flower-woodsy notes gets dominant. A lovely scent, but if you are familiar to EdT notice this one is totally different - and they both are wonderful and have great Chanel-spirit. Jag har både EdT och EdP, De är som 2 olika dofter. EdT är en Orrisrot-aldehyd fräsch doft med blomnoter och EdP är en frukt-blommig doft med dova tränoter i basen. I öppningen är päron/grape dominant men efter en stund dansar blomnoterna runt på en skön träbas. Underbar doft, men om du är van vid EdT'n så är denna helt olik - de är båda superfina men helt olika - de har dock en tydlig o skön Chanel-själ.

Really pleasant. Found a good deal on a bottle in box on eBay(gotta know what to look for) also ‘good deal’ on these is like 230$+ but under 300$, they are now 350 for 2.5oz on their website. Insane. Definitely a luxury lol the bottle is apparently from 2020, it’s way darker than my sample decant, and a bit less musky, it’s closer to 31 Rue Cambon. I kind of prefer the fresher batches since that’s how I first discovered it, however I’m forcing myself to be fine what i got.(I have enough stuff and spend too much lol) It’s beautiful, just a bit different. However I’d say the dry down in the older bottle wins. It’s gotten more of an oily quality, it’s like a wine at this point i guess, right, the newer batch it’s more pleasant first spray, but ultimately more musky and fleeting.