Les Exclusifs de Chanel 1932

Les Exclusifs de Chanel 1932 EDT (190 ml. Left, USD91, 9101) First Impression I am so blissful to have a chance to own this in EDT rendition, consider this is release in short period of time (similar to Misia) before all converting into EDP in 2016 1932, smells like blends of other few chanel fragrance but it has it own merit somehow. either iris or purple flower replica lipstick note. Orris rote in La Pausa do show Mix with sort of muskiness in 1957 / Jersey. The scent is mystical, gotta wear a few times before putting full entry. ==== 1932 edt, full review I truly unaware that this quite a Gem in my chanel line up collection, I know I have to keep it. But.. This out of 7 I decided to keep is the most freshest one, It is soft foral fragrance with mild powdery / musk feel. This is wried for me, because the way ylang introduce in this.. are basically like 31 Reu Cambon that I also own, the most warmest scent in my line up. However, the fragrance still keep very cold and resistance, dreamy, Maybe because of the Lilac. It is fresh and I could even reach in warmer weather, I do like it a lot. Orris still manage to show up beaiutifully. ===== Update 2: February 29th I tried to rearrange my perfume collection, I tried to cut down the the one I prefers to use and represent myself. I tried to differentiate 4 floral fragrances the line has offered. 1932 (edt) 31 Rue Cambon (edp) Beige (edp) No.22 (edp) Then I kinda understand where is this belongs to.. 1932 (edt) is truly mesmerizing and most impacted by reformulation in 2016 the most. I feel like it lost most of it charm and replace with another component that feel liks different fragrance entirely. 1932 (edt) is musky floral bouquet that both youth and dew. It’s fresh and lite yet lyrically sing the gentle note. It feel relax and sunshine in same time. Color of this fragrance feels like Monet’s work, dreamy or The wind rises by Studio Glibi. It’s wonderful binding together. I feel like out of 4, this feels a bit less formal than others. It is the floral you enjoy in time. Sunday, sip tea and biscuits walks across the breezy floral hills. It’s have a feeling similar to Bois d’Argant somehow, by cleanliness feel. Compare to 31 Rue Cambon in EDP, patchouli is dominant in that one. ===== Extension 2 on May 4, 2024 Further I wear 1932 (edt), I feel this is might be one of unique offering in Chanel line up, or maybe fragrance world. Spicy floral bouquet, woody and musk. I tried to generalize this fragrance. I do truly believe this is “Floral-Woody-Musk”. I can’t lie But it is predominantly by my favorite flower, apart from Gardenia. It is “Carnation” but it merge with Lilac and Ylang. 3 differences color of floral become one. And the sour touch, Opponax. It is also contained. It is smoother than Labdanum, I tried to call this amber floral, the sheer lace of Musk is added. No, it is strong musk Chanel used later offering, it is only layer of musk to cover everything. so I can’t. Call “amber floral”. I tried to call this “floral”, because floral in this is dominant. But I can’t denying the musk and amber under. I tried to call this “Chypre”, but musk is cut it out. This sure do the special case to use musk to change the genre of fragrance. This is so pleasant to wear on the Sunday (this slowly become my favorite instead of 28 La Pausa) even it do have vintage feel to it, I wish you could sniff this one.. I won’t cry on the sundays, for sure.. or with one small tear of joy, maybe. ===== Extension 4 on November 22, 2024 “Elusive floral aquatic bouquet place on sheer musk, vetiver and slight touch of old world amber Highlight of 1932 is floral bouquet heart that change like chameleon, the facet of each for hits and sparkling on other. You smell carnation when rose-ylang hits slight clove sudden ylang hits jasmine with aquatic, create an lilac It’s end with clean musk, slight woody nothing extravagance but finely done in french way. If this reminds you strongly of 31 Rue Cambon, it because the quality of Ylang-Ylang is dominant, Chanel Ylang-Ylang always delicious.” ===== Extension 5 on February 1, 2025 It seems I love to wear Chanel in Spring... I just play with 31 Rue Cambon. Like a ritual I almost always 1932 EDT after. And maybe, my enjoyment for Carnation begins with this. I know the topic of reformulation between EDT and EDP are long gone. But if I may point out; this might be the most suffered from reformulation. I don't say this because I have got the EDT bottle. But the way message its convey is difference. I don't know what might happen during transition. Because it might too close to 31 Rue Cambon (I own in EDP format). 1932 edt, is only soft floral bouquet fragrance. from whole Chanel line up. we do have Beige & Gardenia But the principle of 1932 edt, is that its build on Water of the lily material. Lilac is imaginary note suggest by perfumer. But the core is Water of the lily material which isn't natural either. Thus; the charm of 1932edt lays on Kaleidoscope blend of Floral note. As fragrance open up like a lazy flower pixy. You notice a humorous dance between each floral that facet kind of hit and elusive from one to another as Jasmin hit Ylang with Rose goes Carnation. And Jasmin hit Ylang with Lily of the valley showing Lilac. It's perfumer mind. This build on soft amber, veil of musk, aldehydic floral and Vetiver. Which 31 Rue Cambon edp go for classic amber labdanum base. === Biddind the farewell. (15 June 2026, Noir sur Blanc by Francoise Hardy) I come to personal conclusion that, 1932. Is most Chanel scent, but not like Chanel in Tradition, N5 or Bois des Iles. Ancient, It is solid "Elusive - Effortless - Effervescent". Warm ylang, Red Jewel Rose, Woody Vetiver / Opoponex Amber. Elusive musk, Ethereal Aldehydic a explanation that can keep on going. Because, it is that beautiful. But... Perhaps, Chanel is Chanel. Always and be Chanel. That CC cross. Could be Glamour, Post Club Fun, Seasonal and Billboard shine bright its elusive. Like, The fragrance itself. A "feeling" of Chanel Jewelly. The shine. Never be real anyway. It given and borrowed by Chanel. It a glass mirror, you secure In Chanel. but It hand by Chanel.. It so easy to dress in vintage 85's French T-shirt. And some loose leg, sprays 1932 and you feel "Frenchy Effortless". But that itself.. it isn't a French thing I guess? It a bit to cohesive, that is not French when there is no Tension. There is a world out there for me. It time to leave CC Ivory tower, to the ground and my kind. Good bye 1932. always,

Okay a few things about this one. First of this is a CHANEL. 1932 smells like Chanelaide. You know what I mean, plush, dry, a high minded and serious perfume with lots of iris and jasmine and a good woody drydown. For an unsmiling women in pantyhose and a chignon on a Sunday afternoon. You don't mess around with this kind of lady. Second, when I first tried this I wasn't impressed. I felt like it didn't perform well on my skin, and like it didn't do much. I put the bottle away for literally years (my bottle is from 2015) and on a whim pulled it out again. I have a completely different view of this now. So again, this is not a whimsical, sweet, fun and easy perfume. There's aldehydes, a slightly indolic jasmine, and a lush bouquet of proper flowers: Lilac, ylang ylang, jasmine, and roses. The drydown is gorgeous, to a woman like me who enjoy dry woods like vetiver and sandalwood. Surrounding all this is a dusty iris and musk accord. When 1932 first hits my skin I get a soapy spray of aldehydes infused with a big orange blossom. Quickly jasmine joins in, a skanky jasmine at that...not too much but this isn't a washed out friendly jasmine. The orange blossom-jasmine transitions into a lovely lilac, and again, this isn't a friendly lilac--it's natural and heady and musky. Softened and sweetened by a little ylang ylang, and as this wears, a rose appears in the background. The jasmine is still there, but it's much less indolic. Mind you, this is all surrounded by dry iris powder and musk. It's not a straight floral. What a lovely set of florals this is--lilac isn't that common, and yes it's more of an old fashioned note, but gosh lilac and iris are beautiful together. Best of all a huge dose of incense develops in the heart too--there's just a lot of stuff happening here at once. The heart notes settle in for a few hours, before drying down into sandalwood and vetiver iris woods--while still maintaining that dusty musk accord. Silage is close to the body, but the lasting power is good--up to 8 hours. The musk is a big thing though, I think you have to like floral woody musks in order to enjoy 1932. I don't know if the musk notes overloaded my nose the first times I tried it--it seems like a lot of people had an issue with performance with 1932. Or maybe my bottle has improved with time. I don't know, but I'm well past 40, and something about this makes me feel secure, calm, and wise. This definitely isn't for the masses, the dustiness of it all just reminds me of a long life's journey...like it's the halo of the life that you've lived that resides around you. The past isn't always nice, or happy, and not every experience is a positive one. But it's all with you just the same. Such a bittersweet perfume this is, all that past around you but you still have your lovely lush flower inside, still alive and fresh.

Oh, I’m so happy! I managed to snag a bottle of this beauty. Unfortunately, I had to purchase the 200ml as opposed to the 75ml because they sold out of the smaller size. I also heard that this perfume was limited and might be discontinued and if that is the case then I am glad I got the larger bottle. Honestly though, I would rather have a smaller bottle if for no other reason than it would be easier to handle. This is my favorite out of all the Les Exclusifs I’ve tried to date. I am literally having a visceral reaction to this perfume. It’s so lovely and delicate, and so darn achingly beautiful that it takes my breath away. I have been wearing it off and on for days now and don’t seem to be tiring of it at all. Each time I wear it I experience a different facet of this lovely perfume that I didn’t get before. I love how beautifully blended this composition is and how the notes complement each other so perfectly. This has to be one of the smoothest fragrances I’ve ever experienced. There is nothing sharp, off-putting, or jarring. Just wearing it makes me feel good, more confident, and put together - even if I’m just in a bathrobe schlepping around the house. For me, 1932 is beyond beautiful. It is exquisite! I am so happy I got this bottle when I did. I almost panicked when the rep told me this was going to be discontinued. Just the thought that I would miss out on obtaining this beauty almost had me apoplectic. I am so relieved. Now I can relax knowing I have this great big bottle to hold me for a while. Believe me when I tell you, I am going to treasure every drop. Just want to add that Chanel has now made this in edp strength and it is what is selling on their site now. The note profile for the first edp version was a fruity floral. Chanel has discontinued that version and replaced it with this one but even that is subject to change. Anyway, this is what is being sold online and in their boutiques, according to a Chanel Rep I spoke to, but that it might also be discontinued. Oh, Chanel and Dior have me ripping my hair out with their confusing changes.

When I first tried 1932, I didn't appreciate it very much. I felt like it was Rue Cambon light and wasn't really needed. I sort of didn't get the addition. But now I do! This is the perfect daily year round scent and it has grown on me so very much. Sometimes when I don't want my perfume to announce itself and I want something light and casual but still elegant, this is what I reach for. It has a casual yet refined vibe that I love. I love the musky woody base along with the combination of floral and citrus notes. The jasmine in this is beautiful. 1932 is something that always works no matter what kind of mood I am in. I love 31 Rue Cambon but sometimes it can feel a bit much or way too formal, especially the first hour or two. 1932 gives me a similar feeling of the Rue Cambon dry down only it is more casual and light. Sort of like an instant dry down. It is also a scent I kind of crave in the same way. About longevity....I think there is a potent quality about Les Exclusifs that makes people go temporarily hyposmic. This happened to me in the beginning and I thought the fragrances were really light and disappeared. But it was just my nose. I have to avoid breathing in the opening for about 10 minutes and that seems to solve the problem. And never, ever spot sniff where you applied it. That will make your nose shut down. But now that I avoid immediately smelling the opening I have found this line to be very long lasting and pretty powerful. If I had to live on a deserted island and could only bring one fragrance line with me I believe it would have to be Les Exclusifs. I never get tired of it and love everything in the whole line. Even the ones I was iffy about initially seem to turn into loves with time. A phenomenal fragrance line that has my heart. Even 1932.

i hung off from purchasing this beauty for ages, because a lot of the reviews had lead me to believe that i wouldn't like it. an office friendly fruity floral vanilla musk with no longevity. not that. and i love it. for a start, this EDT lasts an entire day on my skin. i have no longevity issues with this or 28 La Pausa or even Bel Respiro. im not getting this dollop of jasmine that is often spoken of, rather a clean soft whisp of it. i am not getting this powdery musky vanilla either, so often referred to in the dry down. This is a sparkling perfume that yes, reminds me of 31 rue cambon (a touch) and has a dash of 28 la pausa (the love of my life). but it is a unique scent in its own right. after the whisp of aldehydes and the fruity jasmine, the 31 rue cambon-likey take-off, in time, the dry down is rather unisex on me. I'm getting some musk mallow, some smokey vetiver, a beautiful orris (actually - orris from the start), oppoponax and incense - when i was expecting sweetish, powdery vanilla musk yawn. this might be "office safe", but so are most of the other les exclusifs! even the mamouth Coromandel. 1932 is a complex and stunning EDT that does indeed live up to it's fine jewellery story. i don't wear diamonds, but i do wear pearls occasionally. nor am i a 21st Century Chanel woman (quite the opposite in fact). BUT please try 1932 if you can. it is going for peanuts on eBay and i truly don't understand why.

I have loved Chanel No. 5 in multiple formulations since I was 4 years old. It has been my favorite fragrance of all times. I have enjoyed some other Chanel fragrances, but Chanel 1932 Les Exclusifs de Chanel is rising quickly to the top. It is just lovely and long lasting on me. No Chanel has been long lasting on me in ages. I eat it faster than most, but I smell this all day with an application to each wrist. I keep sniffing my own wrist or catching whiffs here and there and am enchanted. Not what I was expecting because I typically prefer colder floral aldehydic fragrances super soapy and rosy, but I am surprised by how much I enjoy the warmth from the muskiness in this. It does not smell sweaty, dirty, dusty or in anyway gross like many other perfumes with this much warmth generally do on me. It is clean, spicy, rosy, warm, musky, and slightly smoky. Some may think of Coco Mademoiselle by my description, but while CM is a pretty fragrance on a lot of people, it was always seemed to go a little dusty and sour on me. It was never a go to fragrance for me. This one will be if she continues to perform like this. 1932 is beautiful to me from start to finish!

Oh wow! This is gorgeous! I love the aldehydes, which are only strong in the top notes for me, I wish they lasted longer, because I love the way Chanel does aldehydes. I also detect bergamot and lilac right away. The Ylang ylang is noticeable, but balanced by the other notes, and the jasmine also doesn't overpower, despite getting lots of votes. (Those are two tricky notes on my skin, but here they are controlled and in balance, so they don't stick out too much.). My ability to detect individual floral notes (aside from lilac) fades within the first 30 minutes, as the powdery, musky base notes emerge, and everything blends together. It feels a little soapy, very powdery, lightly musky, and feminine. I agree with others that I can detect some similarities, initially, with Chanel No5 Eau Premiere, but lilac is here and the only floral I can detect throughout the dry down, and also 1932 is more powdery on me. Plus, the aldehydes last longer on me in Eau Premiere. For me, the two are different enough that I want to own both.

This is going on my future To Purchase list. It is a must, must, must buy!!! I received a sample with a recent Chanel order. On me it is a stunning floral aldehyde that’s light and airy. Light airy florals were my first love and I still prefer them over every other perfume genre to this day, but this is elevated by the most beautiful luminous florals I've even smelled in a fragrance. "Sparkles, shimmers, crystal, diamonds", are some of the terms used by reviewers to describe this scent and I couldn’t agree more. It is just soooooo beautiful! Unlike some here, I am not having issues with silage or longevity. Even though this is a light fragrance, it is deceptively strong. I only sprayed my wrists to test, but I could smell it clearly all day without having to touch up once. Just great. Now enough with this talk, I have to get on Chanel's site without delay!

I am not a Chanel-fan, but I fell like a stone for 1932. Its soo fresh, clean, bright, exclusive and I feel like a very rich girl wearing this good stuff. 1932 has soft airy aldehyde note blended with some Rose, Orrisroot, Neroli, Vetiver & Musk. 1932 is very longlasting on my skin and the projection is nice, not in the face but makes the next person inhale a deep breath through their nose and say - what a nice perfum you are wearing. Jag är inget Chanel-fan men jag föll som en sten för 1932. Den är så fräsch, ren, ljus, exklusiv och jag känner mig som en rik flärdig kvinna när jag bär den. 1932 har en luftig aldehydnot som mixas skönt med Ros, Orrisrot, Neroli, Vetiver och Musk. 1932 är en mycket hållbar doft på huden och utstrålningen är fin, inte för mycket utan får nästa person att dra ett långt andetag genom näsan och säga - wow, vilken doft!

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 jewels and colored glass crosses. The comet specifically has always had a particular meaning for Mademoiselle. In 1932, he chose it as one of the motifs of the legendary Bijoux de Diamants high jewelry collection, to sublimate the innate brilliance 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.

I got a decant of this in a split, I was hesitant as the reviews weren't amazing but it sounded like something I wanted to try. I am in love, it is the most beautiful, cleanest, sparkling, refreshing fragrance I have ever tried. The initial burst stays around for hours and the slightly woody dry down was still going 8 hours later. It is the epitome of class and understated elegance, I think this does have a similar vibe to eau premiere No 5 and poudre 19 but I still think I need it in my wardrobe. I personally think it should be categorised as a floral aldehyde rather than floral woody musk.

I like 1932. It is a classy, undeniably chanelly, quality and a very complex fragrance. It does last long on me and changes a lot throughout the wear. Starts off as sheer crystallic aldehydes, following strongly pronounced flowers sweetened by vanilla, and finally a dark, woody and earthy base comes forward. Overall 1932 is sparkling, inviting and even delicious on my skin. I would recommend it to those who do like Coco Mademoiselle, No 5 Eau Premiere or some of the Chance's, but find them either too common or too plain. To me they are somewhat alike, while 1932 being far more versatile.

Looking at the notes and with Chanel 1932 I get the classic Chanel DNA slight classic, soapy aldehydic, floral, musky scent. I feel like a pure diamond when I wear this and my Chanel 5. I purchased mines from the Chanel store where I completed a scent experience with Zack rep at the store in NYC. Quite an exhilarating experience, a must try. I find this to be a similar scent to Chanel 5 but different as well as Cartier Bassier Vole. It’s a scents I tend to go for. I really enjoy this scent. Once emptied I may try a different Chanel.

1932 is one of the nicest chanel exclusifs in my opinion , yes it's not as long lasting as others and it's not as unique as some of the others but its sooo nice and sweet and pretty. Its a great every day scent , not as formal as some of the others and therefor much more wearable. I just love it. I do not get the aldehyde at all in this one. Just a sweet fruity woody vanilla , just beautiful. Casual elegance . Quite orangey , love it ! Update. I love HILAIRE 's review.

I would LOVE this on a woman. It stokes the best olfactory memories of when I've been ever so close to mysterious and elegant women and catch a fleeting sense of her scent and a hint of her body heat. Very nice. Floral, feminine, powdery, beautiful, and elegant. Definitely sense the rose, ylang ylang, jasmine. I'm not sure if I would wear it as a guy, but I really enjoy it...maybe just at home by myself. Scent: 9.5, Longevity: 8, Overall: 9

Beautiful, shimmery scent. Iris and Jasmine float right up to you when you first apply. Lilac, incense and carnation become apparent about an hour later. The rose is very soft in this fragrance, but there. Bergamot keeps everything fresh and sparkly. It is perfect for daytime or night, or anytime you want to smell pretty.

Gorgeous got to sample courtesy of a friendly SA who had open an early arrived tester; to me it is no. 5 as I imagine it could be in the best of all worlds, will certainly get a FB at launch and provide a detailed review.

Beautiful! No surprise with Chanel. An even smooth combination of musk/floral. Somehow this scent is both modern and vintage. It smells classy and classic without anyone thinking you smell like your grandmother.

A lovley every-day-fragrance. Chanel is not my no 1 but this one is! Thanx Jannah for the sample =) En underbar varje-dag-doft. Chanel är inte no 1 för mig men denna kan bli det! Tack Jannah för doftprovet =)

Lovely and musky and very much unisex. I can imagine wearing it during a springtime. It stays discreet like an understated elegance should.

people talk about bad longevity...on me it lasts and lasts loooong....really nice!

I'm sorry to say I must agree with sweetnspicey's review. :-(

Satisfyingly pretty and clean. No offensive notes in this one. I just got this today l thought this was the one with pear notes that's the one l wanted but didn't realise there were two types of this fragrance. I got an amazing bargain on this l bought 200mls for £120 on Ebay so I'm not too mad that it's not the one l wanted it's still quite nice. It's very clean and soft and well put together it's not an overpowering smell it's quite subtle but saying that 3 people told me l smelled lovely today when l wore it to work so maybe it's not as subtle as l think it is, but I'm so used to beastmode fragrances that anything that doesn't radiate waves of fragrance for like, 300 miles is subtle and weak to me. It is quite similar to no 5 in its floral powdery scent but goes a bit further with a subtle sweetness that's probably the vanilla and iris poking through, l also love the magnetic lid on the 200ml bottle, so you can pick it up by the lid and not have to worry that its going to slip out and smash all your other perfumes as you lift it over them. I like that little touch. Many a time I've picked up a bottle by the lid and the bottles slipped out and landed on my Chanel's knocking them all over on top of each other and the feeling of pure dread and panic as l look for leaking liquid and broken glass and swear to myself that I'll never do it again until the next time l forget and do it again! This perfume is chic and pretty, light and clean, with mere whisper of sweetness in the dry down, l smell a touch of Amarige by Givenchy in this too, it's got some good quality moisturising skin cream smell in there as well, or it might be a smell of luxury cosmetics like lipstick or expensive eye products, its a definite Chanel smell though, to me its a cold chic fragrance and Chanel makes cold scents so well. It lasts quite well too, it stayed fragrant for about 5 hrs on me. I'm gutted it's not the pear one but l like this, l doubt I'll ever get it again though, it's not statement, beastmode, mega-sillage enough for me, but I'm glad to have it in my collection though. Its the sort of perfume you would give to a classy chic woman who doesnt like to overpower people with her fragrance. I'm sorry the price is way too extra though, £375 is daylight robbery, other brands create masterpeice fragrances with the exact same ingredients for much less, does it have diamond chips or 18ct gold flakes at the base of the bottle that can be taken to a pawnshop when it runs out? It bloody well should have at that price. 😆 🤣 😂 I would die before l paid that much for a perfume, for £375 it better pick me up from work, run me a bubble bath, cook me dinner, and wash the dishes after! 😄 🤣 😂 ln my opinion the 200ml should cost £250 and the 75ml (why it isnt 100mls baffles me) that should be £110 maximum, that way you wouldn't feel taken advantage of and expect the wonders of world inside the bottle and be slightly disappointed when you realise its just quite nice and your other much more affordable fragrances are actually better! When will l learn that the name doesnt necessarily correspond with life changing amazing juice? I fall for it every time, the reviews the hype, l have 8 Chanel fragrances now and the only ones that have ever really impressed me and made me swoon fragrance wise are original Coco and no 19. It would be a much more justifiable spend if it came with a Chanel charm around the bottle neck that you could put on a handbag or on a bracelet or something. I do love Chanel though, l always feel special and quite boujee when l wear anything Chanel. I give this fragrance a 7/10.

When I wear 1932, I almost find myself willing it to be stronger. Or trying it in different seasons, or applying a huge amount of sprays, or donning it like a body spray, but nothing makes it project very much. It is the ultimate wrist sniffer, literally, though this perfume lasts about 6 hours, I can't smell it on my person unless I am shoving my wrist into my nostrils. Why, Chanel, why, do some of your perfumes have to have such poor strength and lasting power? Especially for this price. For awhile this morning the mousse I scrunched into my hair was wearing stronger than the 1932 I had copiously applied. Just look at all those notes. Citrus, aldehydes, five different floral notes, and like 10 base notes should add up to more than it really does. Because it's not as if I don't like this perfume. I really do. It has a incense/jasmine/orris root/sandalwood/musky character that is very intoxicating. It is very elegant and mature, and I really love the balance of all the notes, after 30 minutes I can hardly smell anything. I really can't differentiate any of the floral notes except for the jasmine, either. The musky vetiver sandalwood base is lovely too but sooo hard to detect. C'mon Chanel you know no one should pay $170 for 75 mls of perfume that has a strength of a body spray, I don't care how classy it smells.

I've always had a distant admiration for this kind of elegant, feminine scents, with vintage vibes and note lists that seem to contain every classical note under the sun, because to me they smell more "perfume-like" than any other category of fragrance, probably because they remind me of what most mainstream perfumes were like when I was a child. For the same reason, or so I suspect, I've never really felt at home in them myself, and I've wondered for a while when that would change. Now, at 35, the wait might be over, because I'm really into 1932, and I can imagine wearing it a lot. It might be because it's a softer variation on that (for lack of a better term) "perfumey perfume" theme; it has classical chypre leanings but without the face punch of dominant oakmoss. The opening especially is gorgeous; it's made me really appreciate and even love aldehydes and clean white musk for the first time - so wonderfully clean and soapy, and such a lovely combination with the abundance of white florals that's also there! This blissfull opening phase lasts for a few hours, after which a creamy ylang-ylang starts to take center stage, and then in the drydown it's more generically powdery/soft spicy. Nice, but it's the opening that really makes it great in my opinion.

Very pretty, a perfect choice for spring. I think the title - 1932 -is a little misleading, because this isn't remotely old-school. (For an old-school or classic vibe I'd wear 31 Rue Cambon or Cuir de Russie from the exclusifs series.) It was named after Chanel's Bijoux de Diamants jewelry collection created in 1932. 1932 is an easy to wear, lightly soapy, subtly animalic floral. I like it more than, say, Gardenia, from the series. It has that Chanel polished mood. Lightly sparkly, in fact a little bit like Cartier's 'Carat' - lightly musky sparkly spring florals - but better. The ambrette gives is sophistication, that little touch of saltiness will wear well in the cooler spring weather. These light florals might not shine so much in mid-summer though, or the cold of winter. Mind you, year-round it would be good for office - wear if that's a concern, it's very innoffensive. Of the entire exclusifs series, my favourite is Bois des Iles, but this is really very gorgeous. I might have to splash out at some point soon! Big like!

1932 is stone cold elegance like a diamond. This is so cold, it makes Guerlains Parure look like an earth mother. She's elegant, beautiful and unobtainable. The aldehyde opening is there to ward off the masses that love their La Vie En Belle. Chanel 22 seems like a warm crackling fireplace compared to this one. Imagine a grand open ballroom with shiny marble and crystal chandeliers. Thats 1932. The heart opens up freshly beautiful with some spice. The base begins to warm her up but there is a very ice cold duality to 1932. Elegant ice queen in public, and after a few drinks loosens up a bit but she's still distant and in control. If waterford crystal had a smell, this be it. Silage is low, understated, rich elegance. Not for everyone. Drydown reminds me of Shalimar PI. More you spray longer it lasts. Recommend skin and clothing like a scarf. EDT version reviewed. Shines in the Fall.

Chanel 1932 EDT is a light floral accord perfume. Starts with Aldehydes, Neroli and Lime - sparkling, light and zesty and then a few minutes its floral heart bouquet with Jasmine, Ylang Ylang, Rose and Lilac come into play. You can’t detect the individual floral notes and it doesn’t get indolic from the Jasmine. It’s rounded out with Musk and Ambrette and I can detect a little warmth coming from sandalwood, tonka and vanilla - but very faint and does not go into Bois Des Iles Sandalwood or Shalimar Vanilla zone. It’s dry down is mainly a floral citrus musk with a hint of resinous accords. 1932 is very luminious and sparkling yet stays close to the skin, except for the initial opening.

Vveeerrrryyy nice, but just got a sample and although I admit I love a spray bottle better. I would be able to give it a better review. Quite floral, and to me seems like it would last longer that my 22 or Jersey. I don't think I'm that smitten with it to get a FB yet, but this is just first dab. It is lovely, don't get me wrong. It works with my chemistry, I just love 22 a whole lot better, and Jersey, right now. Will be back to edit, when I douse myself after shower tomorrow. We shall see how I feel after I wear it a few times. Seems a little more "dress up" than those I mention. To be continued.......

I don't know what to make of my experience with 1932. The opening is intensely floral aldehydic with a sweet orange fizzy note. The heart notes reveal gorgeous sillage that gives off waves of sweet vanillic powdery florals, but when smelled closer to the skin, it smells very much like a chypre. The drydown smells like a chypre, actually it smells almost identical to 31 Rue Cambon in the drydown minus about 1/3 the intensity. I love 31 Rue Cambon, but I can't figure out why I'd buy 1932 for the same (but weaker) drydown but with different short lived heart notes. A puzzling offer from Chanel.

I find 1932 rather inoffensive and, for my tastes, a little underwhelming. A little aldehyde, a little floral, a little sparkling bergamot, a little wood and not enough of anything outstanding. Beautiful I suppose, but without much character compared to other Chanel fragrances. I hesitate to state that, as sometimes a versatile nondescript pretty floral is all a girl needs in certain situations. Although, you can probably find better for greater value. Overall, a gently sparkling lilac-rose fruity floral without the earlier Chanel hallmarks.

A classic chanel opening, with a burst of aldehydes and a hint of cyprus tones. After a few minutes, the jasmine rolls out, and remains the highlight of the floral composition until further into the dry down, where I found a clear iris note combining with fruity undertones. When it reached this point, I was struck by the ressemblance to Eau Premiere. All in all, an elegant floral, timeless, lovely; will definitely use the decant I got, but will not go for a full bottle.

The aldehydes are not as strong as they are in other Chanel fragrances like Chanel N 5 for instance. This is soft, powdery floral through and through. I though based on the description I would love this but there is something in here that throwing me off, perhaps the lilac or carnation. Its like the younger, more modern, and softer version of Chanel N 5 However, the dry down is a lovely, skin scent musk that will make others lean into to smell you.

I can’t stand iris but orris root is almost as bad. Thank goodness it’s only almost. This bottle sure is loaded with it. Also ylang ylang can be trying for me too and here it’s also quite noticeable. Frankly I bought this hoping for a beautiful lilac perfume. Thank goodness the overall scent is very pretty and very Chanel. I got the same Chanel vibe from No.05 which I love cuz it’s my mother’s signature scent. Lasted over 12 hrs on my sleeves.

This one went from a solid "dislike" to a decent "like" for me. 1932 is light on aldehydes, it is basically jasmine and that trademark Chanel base with a bit of powder. Light, inoffensive, office-friendly and perfect for those who are overwhelmed by the majority of Chanel perfumes' bold character but still want to smell like Chanel. Longevity could be A LOT better for that price tag, though.

Very elegant aroma, easy to wear in all occasions. Unfortunately it lasts only two hours on me, which is a shame for such a costly perfume. If you have and like 31 Rue Cambon or even Chanel Chance Eau Premiere, don't bother to buy.

Smells just like lipstick mixed with vintage perfume to me! Very old-school classy, elegant. I want a small bottle of this while watching old Hollywood films.

Warm, soft, velvety. Slight baby powder from the orris/violet. Very nice. Like a softer version of vintage Rochas Femme

There's nothing new and exciting here, I'm afraid. On the contrary - this fragrance screams Chanel in such obvious way, with the same effect as big logos on clothes or fashion accessories have - boring and a little bit snobbish. The fragrance itself isn't completely bad; top notes of suede and jasmine interwined at first smell really interesting, but soon the composition reveals its' main weakness - unoriginality. To me, it's a hybrid of 31 Rue Cambon/Allure Sensuelle, but I'm pretty sure it's possible to smell at least five other (commercial) Chanels in there, too. "Les Exclusifs"?? The only common point with Les Exclusifs is - poor sillage and solid logevity. My biggest issue with 1932 is a matter of form and content; it's all about the form (Chanel, Les Exclusifs) and without any meaningful content (a new, worthy addition to some most legendary Chanel compositions). 1932 = 2013 A year of Flankerstein. One more thing - my opinion about Jersey suddenly greatly improved.

1932 starts off w/ a big blast of Chanel aldehyde combined w/ neroli, and bergamot. It is almost blinding and it is very headache inducing for me. As those fades into the background a bit the very dry and powdery iris shows up along w/ a dry carnation. It becomes greener and fresher in the heart of the fragrance. A very green rose comes in as well. I have trouble w/ fresh accords and this perfume is way too fresh for me. It gives me the feeling of looking into the blinding sun but instead of my eyes being blinded my nose is. I have trouble w/ iris and orris fragrances. For them to work for me they need to have sweeter notes. This is just to fresh, and as I keep smelling it, I get more of a clean laundry vibe. I have to say it is giving me powdered laundry detergent vibes. If you like very clean but powdery and fresh fragrances this is for you but it's not for me.

How is this part of the Les Exclusifs line??! Coco Mademoiselle EDT is more complex and lasts longer than this. This is just another Chance, Vanitas, or The One, but with the Chanel name on it, therefore a sense of entitlement as though it warrants the hefty price tag. It's like Madonna--the name no longer justifies selling garbage to the public. I would recommend those other perfumes over this one. Fine, I will describe the scent, what little there is. It's a watery, bland, powdered lilac, orange flower, musk, and a hint of spice that lasts a max of 4 hours and has no projection. $160 for an "inoffensive office scent". To charge $85 for liquid gold (No.5) and $160 for a wispy perfume like this is like an April fool's joke.

Reading these reviews is making me wonder if I have scent-glue skin, because this has lasted 8 hours on me. True, I did give it 5 sprays this morning, at least 3 more than usual cause i thought it had faded fast. Nope - during on the bus 20 minutes later I began to smell a lovely vanilla something. Took me a few minutes before realizing it came from me! Will have to keep wearing this sample, but initial wear was very nice and beyond my expectations. Update 7.30.2014: Tried 1932 again the other night and it is lovely.

Obviously refined fragrance chilly, goodie, cute, but no soul. Maybe I'm in a strange period, but the scents of the line "Les Exclusifs" (some of them) seem variations on the same theme. "Beige" which resembles "Sycomore" that looks like "Jersey" that looks like .. I'm lost. Perhaps the nose Messieur Polge lately dares very little, a light blow would not hurt. Nothing new under the sky.

گُلی_آلدهیدی_پودری شروعی نسبتا تر و تازهکه زیر سایه آلدهید،حس خفه گی داره و دم کرده شده. زیر ساخت ای چوبی_ماسکی با اجرایی پودری که تداعی کننده ی فضایی تکراری و شنیده شده هست. مثل خیلی از کار های این لاین با کیفیت و کم جونه *************** scent:6/10 longevity:6.5/10 sillage:6/10 purchase value:1/10 ******** overall:4.9/10

Do you want to smell like headache inducing soap? No? Me either. I have never wanted to scrub off a perfume so bad until 1932. My head blasted with pain as soon as I put it on. It's not worthy of being in the exclusives range I can tell you that much. Boring. Moving on quickly from this.

Chanel characterizes this as a "floral woody fruity". I don't see any fruit in the notes, nor does their website tell us, but I have heard it's pear.

An overpriced, soft, cuddly, somewhat generic floral scent with poor longevity. It reminds me of Hermes Equipage. Not for me.

Very distinctly Chanel: reminds me too much of No 5 which I dislike. I also get a faint unpleasant marzipan whiff from this.

I agree with sweetnspicey... this is a miserable addition. never last more than 30 minutes.

I tried this one without knowing which Chanel it was(nameless sample)so I didn't know it's notes at first.the only notes I could guess were:jasmine,musk,a hint of something fresh and fruity like pear or apple and a soft,sweet,powdery floral bouquet It opens lovely,very easy to like fresh and soft floral scent.middle phase is very Chanelesque,classy,has a dominant soapy musky Jasmine which is chanel signature, dry down is heavenly,still Chanel signature in a warmer,creamier way I finally found out that the sweetheart who has mesmerised me was Chanel les exclusifs 1932.I usually look for smallest sizes of perfumes I want to buy but in this case I have to look for it's 200mil(though I know it would be too expensive for me,it's also very difficult to find hear,probably I have to order it abroad) There are a lot of Chanel perfumes I like a lot but this one is my number one favorite up to this point.it's a pretty,easy to wear powdery-musky-clean floral.something that suits a bride perfectly and however it's very springy,I'd gladly wear it year along mostly as a day perfume,a very lady like,gorgeous and elegant one Yes There's definitely aldehydes here but not intense,headache inducing aldehydes.yes there's musk in it but neither animalic nor detergent like.yeah it's a powdery scent but not a choking chalky dry powder.everything's done right here in a soft and pretty way.lilac and Jasmine are the strongest florals and they're not heavy either I love it's refreshing,sparkly opening but I love it's drydown even more which is clean powdery florals rounded by woods and vanilla.I can't find suitable words to describe how much gorgeous it is and how much I love it Lasting power seems to be good(about 8 hours on my skin)and it projects softly This is Chanel no1 for me Edit: I didn't think that I'm going to totally change my idea on this one.I ordered three samples of les exclusifs 1932 Since I loved it but I couldn't afford a bottle. I still like it's opening and middle phase a lot.it smells like drydown of some other chanels.the same jasmine muskyvanilla thing but there's also a soft powdery veil of lilac and oris root to give it a more powdery,floral twist. What makes me change my mind from a big love to a big dislike is it's drydown. Strangely vetiver,incense and opoponax didn't show up when I first tried it but now they showup after about two hours,covering beautiful powdery florals with their bitter woody aroma.it's not that soft,pretty and feminine clean musky vanilla-powdery florals anymore.drydown is unisex and has formal,serious warm and bitter woodyness with a slight balsamic,smokey undertone Sometimes I love vetiver but here it totally ruins this beauty for me(just like Lanvin arpege which I love it's first hour,then masculine vetiver covers everything) Well I'm going to give it more tries and wear all these three samples at different times .if it's drydown stays as it is,it's a no no for me.I'm heartbroken