Chanel No 5 Eau de Cologne

Review of three separate EdC bottles made c. 1970s Sometimes you’re just lucky. For me, it was when a collector-seller acquaintance of mine, who only owns or deals in superbly cared for vintages, happed upon three bottles of Chanel No. 5 EdC, all three bottled through the course of the 1970s. I purchased all three, and I now have nearly 350mLs with which to bask my skin in. Lucky, indeed. As vintage hunters will attest, sometimes a perfume just doesn’t age well no matter how properly it’s cared for. Fortunately I was allowed to test them with blotters before purchasing, and the skin experience reflects the confidence I had during purchase testing. And more. First thing to note is that the lively, juicy, sour, bitter, and a touch sweet bergamot opening has gone a bit vinegary. No surprise; that’s to be expected, and it lasts but for a minute. But the aldehydes - Chanel’s signature prismatic, effervescent, featherweight crystals - are still intact. If anything, they are better than Chanel’s current aldehyde material in that they aren’t quite as pointed, and the effervescence is more like gentle champagne effervescence than carbonated soda effervescence. When I say featherweight, I mean it; they float through the air on the breeze, gently twisting and turning. Stunning. Then the jasmine, rose, and ylang-ylang heart.... The only other perfume with a heart like this that can make me collapse at the knees from intoxicated joy is a vintage Jean Patou Joy extrait. The heart of these old EdCs is still beating very strong. Oh joy of joys! - no pun intended. In this format, batch and age, the florals are far more abstract, seamless, and well blended than they are in the new EdPs and EdTs of the last couple decades-plus. This is a true amalgam, with the lines blurred to imperceptibility as compared to modern No. 5s where the lines of the three florals - where one ends and another begins - are a bit more apparent and the notes more crisp and high resolution. These old EdCs are Impressionist paintings, whereas new EdPs and EDTs are more like high res photos. Finally, the biggest and best surprise - and joy of joys - of these old EdCs is the dry down. In the new EdPs and EdTs the synthetic sandalwood plays an enormous role. Like Atlas the sandalwood is holding up the weight of new formulations’ dry downs, and the strain shows. The sandalwood is obviously synthetic, sharp, and not nearly as well-stitched to the heart and other base notes as one would hope. It’s good (batch dependent), make no mistake, but... these EdCs are another level. The sandalwood is real. Creamy, peppery, vibrant, sanded to an almost silken texture. But it’s a supporting role in the dry down, and quite minimal. No - the biggest and best surprises are the civet, oakmoss, and musks. The oakmoss is pumped up to the max - real oakmoss, not the shell of it used today. Wet, loamy, woody, it’s just gorgeous and steers No. 5 into a convincing chypre direction when partnered with the sandalwood. This is a drastic difference from what we have today. Then there are the musks and civet, the other drastic difference. These old EDCs are so sweetly fecal, animalic, and just plain dirty it tells you a lot about how tastes have changed over the last many decades. The civet and musks make these EdCs very nearly rude and filthy, and oh so much fun. Today’s No. 5s are seen as prim, proper, lovable by all, and present a calculated person - a beautiful, prim, and proper person worth adoring for sure - but these EdCs say “I am that person, but make no mistake that I have dark and improper desires below this pretty and innocent face.” The dry down of these vintages is absolutely magnetic, and eye-widening while a huge smile plants across my face. I made a mistaken assumption when I bought these, and could smell the dry down to a much lesser degree on a blotter, that what would make me the happiest boy a boy could be was if that floral heart remained intact and presented me with the No 5 I know and love, but having worn these EdCs for a week now I now know that so much more lay in wait. I knew, and expected, my vintage extrait to do this, but I had no comprehension that the EdC was going to be so magnificent. If you have the ability to get an old EdC, even if its provenance might be iffy, take a chance. Even if only one of two or three work out, you’ll be thankful you chased after them. Legend.

If I had to describe N°5 cologne in one word, I’d choose furry. Give me more and I’d go with balsamic and animalic. This long discontinued beauty is the closest to the original extrait, and even though it’s a cologne in name, it rivals most modern edp’s. Vintage mid 70’s splash bottle. N°5 eau de cologne, opens with dimmed brightness. You can sense the aldehydes in there, but they’re somehow dark. They’re not gone or flat, because there’s still a jolt and a sparkle that’s unmistakable. But they’ve somehow gone richer and deeper if that makes sense. They feel like velvet as opposed to freshly bottled chiffon lights. The floral heart, with undoubtedly real rose and real jasmine, is made deep and sensual with some heavy ylang and you can already sense a gorgeous Mysore sandalwood, a smoky and earthy vetiver, all wrapped up in some gorgeously potent nitromusks and civet. You can’t miss it here; they become the stars not long after it’s applied and they start stealing the show slowly but steadily. There’s also a ton of oakmoss, and leather even if not listed. The base is so rich and balsamic, with a swirling sweetness that feels like the finest licorice. There is 0 trace of sweetness as it’s known and used today. This richness here is fatty, unctuous and enveloping. It feels like a potion aged and macerated in ambery gooey sweetness. The oakmoss further deepens it and the leather provides a ‘masculine’ touch, lending a certain dryness that balances it all. Forget the traditional edc designation of splashing liberally for 30 glorious minutes of freshness. N°5 isn’t about it. There’s the same furry animal quality you find in the likes of Miss Dior, Tabu, Tigress, Joy, Shalimar and many more; an animal hidden and waiting to be unleashed with the warmth of skin. N°5 edc is basically a lighter extrait, and it shares far more similarities than differences. Think of it as a lighter pure parfum. The vintage edt does have more sparkle and feels more daytime appropriate. But as it dries down, the same animalic base emerges. Modern formulas have a glorious and bright aldehyde opening, because Chanel indeed does aldehydes like no one else, but after an anemic floral glimmer, they dry down as simple soapy scents. Finely milled soap of course, but just that, there’s no trace of the warmth and danger that abounds in the vintage formulas. Are they similar? Well, after many decades of tweaking and many perfumes that came after, you are better of with modern versions of First or Arpège, which have aged extremely well and convey the essence of N°5 far better than current iterations. Modern N°5 has retained the allure and mystery, the glamour, all that was lost through reformulations but only in image and marketing. It keeps bringing customers to Chanel but they have long abandoned their signature in favor of modern creations. Nothing wrong with that, but they should have taken more care in preserving their heritage. If posible go for vintage, there are still many formulas and bottles available, and leave the soapy and creamy scent of the modern version for the soap and body line. The ancillary products have more pizazz than the perfume line. Sillage and longevity is worthy of a full night with Marilyn. Breakfast included!

Goodness, all that was quite a read. Lots of great well-written reviews. Still, I'm always amused and not a little irritated at alount of ageism in perfume (not just in these reviews here, but in many of them for many scents). Who knew? Maybe it was always part of being young, but if so I don't recall it. All I know is, I'm glad there was no entire-world-sized room (aka - internet) of my peers back in the day, pressuring me to like this, hate that, and dictating that this was scent was "old" or that was "young". To me, my frangrance likes or dislikes were just what I liked or disliked, without the need for value judgements or catagorizing perfumes by age. Doing so says exactly zero about the scent, and really just reveals the ignorance and prejudices of the writer. But enough of that. I bought a bottle of Chanel No 5 EDC when I was 13 at a very odd discount center in my city - groceries, clothing, odds and ends, and perfumes. I had longed after it for quite a while, and I'm not sure how I came by the money, maybe my mom had pity on me. But it was a BIG DEAL. It cost a whole EIGHT DOLLARS. Big time. And it was my very first perfume. I was able to make it last until college, and I did use every last drop. Of course by then, my head was being turned by some other classics of the day - White Linen, Aliage, Obession, and a slew of others. And I never got another bottle of No 5 of any strength, for some reason. But it has always loomed large in my olfactory memory. Call it my first love. Fast forward a bit, and I have recently found myself bored with the scent offerings at the usual places, like department stores, etc. I've found a few I like in recent years, but too many scents are utterly unmemorable. Not horrible, just...boring. And they just do NOT last. And No 5 in its current iteration - the eau de parfum, was not speaking to me. (The eau premier may get a second sniff though) So the deep dive into the virtual perfume world has commenced for me. I've had great fun sampling and getting decants, and have already found some keepers. But I still wanted that No 5. So...tada! I finally scored a still-sealed bottle of vintage 60s-70s (probably early 70s) EDC on eBay. After cutting my finger on the foil (dang but they meant that thing to stay sealed!) I got a whiff of my youth. It was as lovely as I remember. I don't have a huge or even large, perfume vocabulary yet, but I can certainly identify the blast of aldehydes at the open, but those I've always liked just fine. It settles down pretty quickly though, and just hums along with what I can identify as jasmine and orris, and the other stuff I have no ability to tease out, until it finally gently leaves with some faint vanilla and musk. It seems softer than I remember - maybe it's just my nose at this point, or maybe it's because we're both older now, this bottle and I. But it lasts pretty well - say about 4-5 hours, and stays pretty close to the skin, probably due as much to having to dab rather than spray. Overall, still a gorgeous elegant scent, great for any age. I'll be wearing this bunches, so I'll be on the lookout for another bottle.

Chanel No 5 Vintage Cologne The first time I met her she sat on a shelf at the Chanel boutique in Paris on one of my visits circa 1959. At the time I was engaged to be married and excited about buying French perfumes. For a long time I avoided this fragrance, which even by the 50's was overrated and commonly used by everyone and their mother, so I thought that this perfume would not be for me. It was raining and I forgot my umbrella so I had to walk into the store under my fiancé's umbrella. The sales lady looked at me like I was from another planet, even though we were both European and my country was only across the Channel and my country had saved her country from the Nazis! The opportunity was there and so I bought Chanel No. 5. I was asked to sample it but I chose not to and to discover the scent for myself when I got home. My mother never wore this as she preferred Chanel Cuir de Russie Chanel No 22 and Chanel Gardenia. The first whiff was an orgasmic aldehyde. Such beautiful fresh brilliant and old timey perfumy aldehydes. These were the very first aldehydes in the history of perfume. Beautiful. The aldehydes settle down and a powdery iris and rose scent emerge, my God. So floral and so pretty. Womanly, feminine, elegant. It seems to be based on the rose but it's not a rose perfume. The florals are very lovely but they quickly turn spicy and musky. The base notes contain civet and musk, perhaps a touch of leather and plenty of vetiver and oak moss. I had experienced moss and civet before so I was able to take it. In the end I sighed with relief. This was a gorgeous perfume when it was selling in the Golden Age of Perfume and still is. If you give it a chance, the cologne, with it's amazing projection, sillage, longevity and aroma, can seduce you and enchant you. It's a perfume that begs to be loved, to be treasured. It's iconic and the perfume of perfumes. I wear this infrequently so that I wouldn't smell it too much and enjoy the scent the few times I do wear it. It always feels like an old friend, a friend that waits for me patiently to meet up with her again. No. 5 is a fragrance of aldehydes, roses, iris, powder, musk and moss, a perfume of enduring appeal, ageless, timeless, captivating, a fragrance that has stood the test of time and continues to be the most recognized and famous fragrance of all time.

This is my very first Chanel and my second vintage buy. This formula seems to appear very frequently online, and often times for decent prices. My 2 oz bottle I assume is from the 70s or 80s. This opens with those classic Chanel No. 5 aldehydes, which seem to be amped up in this formula. This settles into a beautiful woodsy-powdery-musky accord of ylang ylang, rose, and jasmine, with sandalwood, oakmoss, vetiver, amber, and a light offering of musk underlying the flowers. The airiness of the aldehydes also still linger for a little while in the dry down. I haven't smelled civet by itself, so I can't single it out here. This is very long lasting for a cologne. I still smelled traces of it hours and hours after I applied it. This will certainly last you a good 8+ hours. This has such a deep, rich, velvety quality that current formulations just don't have. This is closer to the No. 5 that Marilyn Monroe wore and loved. This reminds me alot of the current EDT, and slightly of my Coty L'Aimant, however L'Aimant is a bit sweeter and fresher than No. 5. This also reminds me of my grandmother's vintage EDT that sits on her bathroom shelf. That too, has this rich, velvety, deep, woodsy quality that modern No. 5 lacks. The fact that this was ever reformulated is a tragedy. I personally loathe the IFRA for it's silly and unnecessary restrictions on ingredients. A warning label would suffice. My mother has horrible allergies, and almost no perfume would work for her. Most people with allergies already avoid perfumes. Reformulations and restrictions have ruined the best and most iconic fragrances. I guess I can only hope in the future that regulations are rolled back, and more research is done on synthetics to improve them and verify their safety. I hope that one day, No. 5 and other great classics will smell like this once again and be closer to Earnest Beaux's original formula.