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.

I tried this at a department store with several of the other Chanel Les Exclusifs line. This was my favorite, so I got a sample of it. When I tried it on later, it was more floral than I remembered. The jasmine is nice but the lingering generic "floral notes" listed remind me of my grandma. A few other notes listed share some in common with Dior Homme Intense, which I love. I suspect the pear/ambrette note in both comes from the synthetic molecule Helvetolide. To compare the two, 1932 is a lot lighter than Dior Homme Intense and the white florals are stronger than the iris, making it quite a bit more feminine. Overall, I like it but with the strong florals, I'm not sure it could be considered unisex.

I received the miniature as a gift when I bought 31RC, because my Chanel SA said I’d like this. I didn’t fully register it in the moment, but once I got home, I understood; she was right. I like it. To me, this smells like a soft, less-aldehydic version of 31RC (chronology be damned; that’s how my brain files it). It’s as if our character wears 31RC at night; erotic, adventurous and chooses this one for the office by day. There’s mischief simmering underneath, yet it also reads clean and serious. I’m a sucker for iris-forward, powdery, woody compositions, and the jasmine contribution here is significant. In short: very beautiful, and FBW.

1932 sometimes get a bad rap, a side eye, for being the most “mainstream” of Chanel’s Les Exclusifs line. I understand the criticism—it doesn’t feel as “special” as the other scents in the collection. Still, being beautiful, pleasing, shimmering, effervescent, wearable, transitional, etc. etc. aren’t downsides to my nose! The aldehydes truly sparkle here; they must be visible from space.

Sparkling citric aldehydes become iris-forward florals as it dries down with a consistent fruitiness. Smells very much Chanel, but done in a more "neutral" manner that invokes the core elements of No.5, Chance, Coco Mademoiselle, etc. and makes it mainstream. Warm weather only, no other season to really wear this and have it be experienced like it's meant to.

I get 31 Rue Cambon without the patchouli and labdinum in the opening. Lots of iris and aldehydes. Later in the dry down is actually when I start to get some of the fruits which is strange since these only seem to be listed in the top. Not really a shining star in this gorgeous collection but nice. Overall a lovely sophisticated, classically Chanel fragrance!

It's pretty and has a great citrus/fruity opening with the pear and grapefruit. The powdery dry down is very comforting and nostalgic. It feels very motherly. Some may see it as overtly feminine, but I think anyone can pull it off if they really wanted to. Moderate projection and moderate longevity.

This is such an easy Fragrance to wear and has most of the notes I love. The opening of Fruits is so fresh .. when It dries down I still smell a hint of fruits but it warms up and I can smell the creaminess of the vanilla. Sparkly, comforting and warm at the same time.

Makyaj I bet that lipstick smell is the synthetic compound I mentioned that I believe is also in Dior Homme Intense. If you read the reviews on DHI, a lot of people say it smells like a bag of makeup, or lipstick. To me it's not a bad smell.

This is interesting, not what I expected. Pear is very dominant to start with, and then it’s sort of fuzzy and powdery with a hint of vetiver and some round fruitiness. Utterly classy. Wish I could afford it.

I don't know what is wrong with my nose but everytime when i use Chanel 1932, it smells like a lipstick. There is a powder and some floral notes but also lipstick is there so clearly.

If you have a 75ml bottle (full or high/low partial) in CONUS that you want to declutter/swap please message me. I’m looking for a bottle. Thank you 🙏🏼

It’s too similar to 31 Rue Cambon for me to consider purchase, as I already have it. Powdery citrus and iris without the patch in the base.

Clean, jasmine opening. I tried at the duty free and loved it, but can’t say much about the dry-down.

An incredible perfume, sister to and evocative of the brand's other brilliant exclusive 31 Rue Cambon. 1932 is less of a chypre and the balance of the florals is subtly different, but ultimately hits an identical emotional beat to 31RC. I didn't try 1932 for a long time after being hugely underwhelmed by the similarly named 1957, but there's really no relation between these scents at all. 1932 opens with a thin veil of subtly fruity aldehydes which are sufficiently sheer to allow the perfume's floral core to shine through even on opening. Said core is primarily an iris, which lends a giant makeup/ lipstick powderiness to the interior. However, this iris is tinted by jasmine, ylang-ylang and other florals, as well as the aforementioned fruits, to give an overall impression of a very powdery and earthy, warm, slightly indolic floral. I can clearly smell indole but it's extremely subtle, presenting only as one tiny subunit of a much larger, floating fruity-floral core. The soberness of the iris grounds the more jovial elements to give a scent which to me is just as prim yet still friendly as 31RC: neither is the androgynous 'cold bitch' perfume one would expect from Chanel. The vanilla and woods are perfectly judged in the base, lending a tremendously cuddly dry down of the softest and most hypoallergenic texture. To me 1932 smells like bottled comfort, albeit the kind which can only be afforded by the very wealthy. I'd also have to temper my praise by saying it's really not my thing at all - this is an extremely well-tamed and I'd almost say domesticated bouquet - it does to me give the impression of chiffon curtains and magnolia carpets through-and-through. As a guy who loves wearing floral and feminine scents, I find even I can't get down with this particular brand of wife-esque, single-string-of-pearls, toy dog in handbag, perfect perm, perfect skin, nude colour stiletto heels level of haute femme. I'd love to smell it on someone else though, I just prefer Chanels on the colder and more challenging side. EDIT: I was thinking about this one and got myself a larger 10ml decant and have been wearing from there. Once again, it's still just not quite for me - very pretty but just a little too manicured and also a tiny bit stuffy.

1932 is a strange animal. An unusual, dissonant scent, 1932 still retains the distinctive hallmarks of a Chanel scent. It is very niche. Far from a crowdpleaser, this scent needs to be unpacked and considered, and is an acquired taste. From my reflexive "no" upon initially trying this scent, I can now somewhat appreciate it. However, it is not full-bottle worthy, and truthfully is not to my taste. The aldehydes of the opening are light and airy, complemented by the citrus notes. Instead of a run-of-the-mill fresh citrus opening, the citruses of 1932 are thin, cold and bitter, bordering on harsh. The bitingly sharp bergamot note is most apparent, complemented by the bitter, green neroli. The pear, sweet, juicy and realistic emerges after a little while, giving some much-needed body to the opening. Very unexpectedly, the pear and musk accord here reminds me of Britney Spears Curious. However, it doesn't last. The soapy floral heart emerges as it develops, with jasmine and perhaps some ylang ylang being most dominant. The aldehydes remain. As it develops further, the florals become light, with a thin, pollen-y yellow-floral accord coming to the fore. This is counterintuitive: I expected the florals to become richer/deeper, even sweeter. Some points for unpredictability, however 1932 is not the better of this. As it begins to dry down, a very powdery iris note dominates, which along with what remains of the aldehydes screams "CHANEL". It is very dry, dusty and musky with vetiver and woody notes in the base giving body. The smokiness of the incense note only enhances the dryness. It is softly spicy, and not that sweet despite the hint of vanilla in the base. It dries down to a powdery, animalic, musky skin scent. Feminine-leaning, but could almost be worn by a man these days. It is a dark scent, initally cold, only warming up a little as the incense and vanilla base notes emerge. Sillage is fairly intimate after the initial opening, and longevity is moderate. A trans-seasonal soapy, floral day scent, it is too cold-hearted for me. 2.5/5.

This has that classic Chanel DNA. It dries down a bit powdery/soapy with Iris and jasmin. The aldehides and citrus give it a freshness thats good for spring. After 20 minutes it morphs into a very subtle soft version of Chanel Allure. This frag also has a likeness to Doir Joy Intense. I also get a wisp of Coco Mademoiselle without the obnoxious patchouli. The more I wear this, the more I am liking it.

This is very well balanced perfume. The opening has a slightly sour edge, I don’t exactly like it, but I can’t stop smelling it either. The sharpness gradually fades, revealing the crisp freshness of pear. Once the pear note disappears, the white florals take over. But in the end, the dry-down is too flowery and too rich for me.

This is a meh for me as many of the notes melt together with the ever present Chanel aldehydes. It works fine as an everyday scent but when and if I buy Chanel, it has to wow me and this one doesn’t... Thank goodness for samples 🖤

This fragrance is all what the reviewers say in common period. I have a sample, and at a whim in the early evening, I put a small drop on. Whew, I mean, this is everything together what the gang says, but not up my alley, or neighborhood at all. To me, it's like meeting that celebrity after many years, and you can smell his fragrance, and as you are surrounded by his essence, you can clearly detect his aroma, but you just can't grab it, and as your brief encounter ends, you finally come down from the cloud and put quill to paper and write the conversation down, how you felt, what he said, blah, blah blah, but you never can re-capture that essence of him. It just reminds me of somebody else's fragrance, and I don't think I'll ever try it again. Chanel and I are sometimes on the same page, even same line, but when we're on other pages, sometimes that feeling is like, maybe I want to be in another book altogether. Does that make sense. Sorta in a nutshell, it's nice, but not me and it's that fragrance that one of your good friends wore, and you couldn't wait for it to dissipate. Not offensive, but not Thor walking right towards you either. But give it a try before you buy. But do try it, quite possibly could be your next ride for awhile.

I thought Pure Musc For Her smelled like funeral home. This does, too, but in a much more expensive smelling way. I had to look up what flower it is that is traditionally associated with funerals. “Lilies are often considered to be the classic flower for funerals. According to an article by Everplans (2021), when someone says ‘This place smells like a funeral home’, they most likely are thinking of the intense scent of lilies.” Both of those perfumes say “floral notes” so maybe to me that means lilies. It also smells mature; I ended up giving this sample to my mother-in-law.

I liked it on the test strip, so I sprayed it on my skin. 1932 opened nicely, but 30 minutes later I was rather underwhelmed. For me, it smells generic and dated. But it's the drydown that killed it for me. The musk smells so animalic on my skin, that I had to go and wash it off. It was this unpleasant. A big no for me. Do not blind buy unless you know that you can handle this type of musk.

Too vintage aroma for my tastes.

As a Chanel brand fan, their perfumes form part of my wardrobe and I feel naked without them! 1932 EDP is a gorgeous vanilla based fruity floral very modern and not at all what I was expecting with a 1932 year association. This doesn't smell of 1932. So now. 2017. Or last year 2016. Or 2016. You get the picture. Quite modern and wearable for younger women. It's a soft boudoir scent, cosmetic, powdery, like having come out of an upscale beauty salon. You know. Your hair is made up in a gorgeous perm, you look great, smell great. You have lipstick on, your fingernails are painted and well manicured as are your feet. A pampered 'kept woman' kind of a smell. Opens with fresh aldehydes very fresh and bubbly the kind of nice classic aldehydes from Chanel as in No. 5 and No. 22. It has citrus juice courtesy of a grapefruit that stands out with a juicy pear. Smells almost tropical. The opening is very modern and easy to like. Nothing offensive about it. Delicious fruit notes. As it settles down on the skin, the florals come through. I catch whiffs of green and white florals as in green notes or green leaves around jasmine, like jasmine bushes, but overall I detect an iris scent, a distinct powdery iris. The iris is a bit overdone and this might be the cause of the lipstick and nail polish type of aroma. Not that I dislike those scents. This is not a heavy floral but it's still coming on strong with iris. In the dry down the woodsy notes develop and they are like soft wooden bases in cups, made of cedar and sandalwood, with an aromatic vetiver not like grass far more polished. The dry down is evocative of a great smelling furniture polish. In this sense it reminds me of Guerlain's Shalimar Parfum Initial. In fact this has similar notes as it starts off with citrus fruit segues into florals namely iris and dries into wood. A simple even linear composition but very elegant and romantic. I'm getting a flexible day and night formal and business wear vibe. Smells great with a suit or pant suit or suit and skirt. She is mature and confident, womanly and worldly. 1932 does not smell like a vintage perfume from '32 nor does it even try to go there. However it does try to smell like a 1950's boudoir perfume composed of sweet fruit and powdery florals, quite stylish and girly without being cute or saccharine. She is a very well-dressed and mature young woman who likes to wear softer less muskier less green and more powdery floral Chanel scents. This doesn't belong in the wardrobe of Coco herself. This is for a young client of hers. I do like this perfume especially now that the weather is getting warmer and we approach summer. Makes a fine summer scent refreshing fruity floral with a feminine and soothing powder.

Fragrance Review For 1932 Chanel Top Notes Pear Grapefruit Aldehydes Middle Notes Jasmine Iris Floral Notes Base Notes Vetiver Musk Woods Incense Vanilla Formulated by Jacques Polge, this is a fantasy of the glamour of 1932 for me. It has a sweet and fruity scent, far more fruity than any Chanel fragrance past or present. In fact upon that first whiff I was not sure it was a Chanel. There is so much pear grapefruit with a tangy, and edible fruit scent that it can pass for something other than a Chanel. As delicious as these fruit notes, they are at variance with most Chanel perfumes. The aldehyde content, however, brings it back to that Chanel realm. The aldehydes are effervescent and fresh, like bubbles and froth. This smells like a young Dolores del Rio out on the town, her perfume fruity floral, and inviting with her wardrobe of satin and her warm smile. This is also something for Fay Wray. It has a feminine but not mature air. The florals are nondescript white florals, a distinct Grasse jasmine, and an iris. The iris would have been powdery but it smells light and a bit inky. There is more jasmine than anything else in it. I love the jasmine in this scent. It's clean and brilliant. The florals are preludes to the later scent of vanilla with chypre tones. I smelled vetiver, green notes and musk, along with woods. This is a very subdued chypre but it is still enjoyable as a woodsy perfume. The vanilla, Polge's favorite base note, keeps everything together. It's so elegant and Chanelesque when you pick up on the base notes. Elegant, conservative and womanly. This matches up with semi formal and formal wear for day wear. The incense note that is supposed to be in it is never reaching my nose although the dry down and last part is warm. The glamour of this perfume is appropriate for evening wear. Not much else to say. This is a gorgeous scent and one of the most adorable fruity Chanel scents out there. I highly recommend it for both experienced perfumistas who like Chanel frags and or as an intro to Chanel. If you like Chance or Misia, you might also enjoy this one. For me the dominant accords are the fruit. Never before did I imagine that the pear and grapefruit would be this good and this prominent in a Chanel perfume. So sweet! Love it.

Be careful people. As Moniq below pointed out there are two different versions of this scent. One is an orris heavy floral aldehyde and the other a fruity floral. The one listed here is the fruity floral. The other listing is for the edt. But to complicate matters further, Chanel at one time also made the notes of the edt into an edp, and then discontinued that and went back to this. Why they did that I have no idea, but it is bound to piss someone off. Anyway, the only reason I point this out is so someone doesn't get disappointed thinking that they are purchasing the scent described here when they are actually purchasing the note profile of the fragrance listed on the Les Exclusif's 1932 edt page.

Mmm.. I don't like this. Which is terrible, because now I'm stuck with a 6.8 oz bottle of it (if anyone wants to trade, please let me know)! In theory, it's not a bad scent. Now, this is purely a body chemistry issue. I think it smells good when sprayed in it air, and I like it on my clothes. But as soon as it hits my skin? Dirty wet iris mixed with bodily fluids a la urinal cake. I'm not sure exactly what the offending note is that's giving offensive bathroom air, but it only pops up when it hits my skin. Sigh, it was between this and 1957, and maybe I should have just went the other direction. This is why you should always test things first! I'm heartbroken.

The pear starts to smell oxidised by the 10 minute mark, as if it was sliced up and left outside on a summers day to rot, this is not helped by the aldehydes. Overall really nice with that aside, someone said 1932 was similar to a Guerlain but I don’t see any resemblance. Smells very pretty but pretty as in generic...longevity on skin and clothes isn’t anything to be celebrated either. Overall, I liked it but that initial like started to turn into a dislike.

The 1932 EDT is very much like 31 Rue Cambon or Bel Respiro, somewhat between those two. It also has a similar feel to the Chance line. I owned a limited version of EDT but it wasn't very pleasant for me. However, due to its stronger fruitiness, the 1932 EDP has a distinct difference from those two. I prefer the EDP because I like fruity scents. and Its longevity was also improved.

this is 31 Rue Cambon shy cousin. but the elegance, oh, it runs in the family. there is something from 31 RC, tendre poison from Dior, allure sensuelle and coco edp in this. a bit woodsy at the beginning, but it dries down beautifully with floral nuances and some aldehydes, IMO. it lasts about 10 hours on my skin.

the initial spray intimidated me in a classic "too vintage old lady aldehydic for this 20-something year old gourmand girl" type way BUT THEN the drydown completely turned it UPSIDE DOWN and it smells SO GOOD my reputation to myself as a white florals girl stands strong my taste has been restored