L'Interdit 2003

I am shocked by how much I love this perfume. I bought it mostly because (among others) I collect Givenchy perfumes. This has a strong opening-powdery but not so powdery that you feel like choking. I would recommend a light touch because a little does go along way. After a few minutes the powder fades but does not disappear and I get a sweet light note-tuberose I think and plum and finally sandlewood and musk. I know this perfume is mostly disliked but it smells amazing to me. I never thought I would find a Givenchy fragrance that I would like better than Organza but I did.

I have no idea what the original was like and I'm glad that I don't because I had a blank olfactory canvas so to speak, when trying this. This is a very elegantly beautiful perfume which just surrounds you with powdery florals and violets. Instant love for me, it's too wonderful for words. Silage is good but longevity isn't great because it is an EDT after all, but I don't mind a few re sprays through the day. If you can get hold of it and you like a perfume with a vintage vibe but not too old fashioned, this one is lovely and well worth searching for.

I too do not have the original to compare. However, I would like to say that at first spray, it smells like bug spray. After about 5 minutes it starts smelling like violets, and after about 15 minutes it smells like violets with just a hint of powdery smell. Never dreamed it would dry down to such a gorgeous scent. I guess people either LOVE or HATE this scent!

09. may 2011 I have tried it today on a tester paper the red box of EDT. This is a really nice scent where i can clearly detect a sweet note of strawberry and peach but also a very very pleasant flower notes on the drydown. Lasts quite long for an EDT and would be really nice for spring summer i think. One day i will buy it. I have not tried the vintage one, but having nothing to compare with i really like this version. Maybe i would changee my mind after trying the old version, but since i haven ́t i love this one, don ́t know wither about the version that came after this one.... This is the only version of "L ́interdit" i have tried by far. UPDATE: (20 january 2014) it is very strange that the notes has been changed for this version of "L ́interdit" Previously there was a strawberry note listed amongst them and i swear i smelled it very clearly as well. Now i am very much confused. I need to get that last bottle i ́ve seen standing in the shop to retest it and see whether my nose was wrong or not. But i swear i smelled a strong artificial strawberry in here.

Bought my bottle when it was released in 2002 after someone I had a crush on told me I looked like a young Audrey Hepburn. It was quite a double swoon for me! With head planted firmly in the clouds, I strode into Nordstrom to purchase the scent of Audrey. I later came to know this version was not the L'Interdit she wore. L'Interdit 2003 is cool and metallic. Fresh, bright, soft, gentle. It's youthful, uplifting and easy to see the connection to the persona of young Audrey. It smells "real" to me. Lots of stem and leaf greenery. It's easy to wear and some days it provides a little lift to my spirits. On my skin, it is very linear and without much change or development. Because of this, I rarely wear it. It becomes a bit boring.

As an Audrey Hepburn fan, I had to jump through loops trying to find this version of this perfume and had it shipped from US in weird ways. Anyhow, I was a bit disappointed and thought maybe the 2003 version is not really similar to the original. So I still wander the scent that made Audrey go nuts. The 2003 version is still clean, floral and classy. I only wear it on very special occasions (like my wedding day!) and when I do, I definitely feel as if I travelled back in time. It's not at all a fragrance I could wear daily though.

Reminds me of Chanel #5. Not an especially good thing but not awful.

I agree with Yumm and several others here, glad i am not the only one to have noticed, the old version was lovely, this new one certainly doesnt come anywhere near it, I too dislike this new version very much and feel so "ripped off" by paying for it

I bought this at Harrods in London during Fashion Week. I was under the impression, like most of us are, that this is an tribute fragrance to Audrey Hepburn and her fragrance from 1957 L'interdit. I have the original vintage old formula and this is nothing like it. The vintage is softer, powdery and has less fruit concentration. This L'interdit wears more like a heavier fruity-floral and it's more full-bodied and has that 90's floral-fruity vibe. You get more peach than you do strawberry. It's also one big orange blossom. It's actually a lot of everything when it comes to the flowers. The original was a big strawberry.rose.The flowers that stand out in this one : violet, tuberose, heliotrope and jasmine. The rose should have been more prominent like in the original but here it's barely perceptible. The plum peach and strawberry notes make it very sweet and therefore there was no need to add vanilla! I like this but it's too fruity for me and I'm not always fond of fruit in fragrances. This has amber which gives it a clean dry down and it's musky instead of powdery. The sandalwood is very nice and gives it the feel of a vintage woodsy perfume. This is lovely and girly very romantic and perfect for spring and summer. Classically feminine, sweet, heady and gorgeous. I love it but it's not related to the original L'interdit which wears more like a subdued version of this one. This one is far more elaborate, with lots more fruits and flowers. It's like L'interdit the original on steroids LOL Love it.

Guys, I wonder if fragrantica researchers could specify it more accurately, when this release was made (basenotes says it was 2002). Also, here we do not have a certain mention of noses behind the reformulation. As per basenotes, they were Olivier Guillotin and Jean Guichard, father of divine Aurelien Guichard. No wonder this version inspires controversial reviews and feelings. The original is really just as far from this one as any fresh or light flanker may stand apart from it's initial version. Nor even EDT. Almost independent fragrances... But there is something wonderfully common in the two amazing scents. The aura of fluffines, zesty fruitiness and soapiness neighbouring with a suttlest skin-scent animalic nature combined with notes de fond of transluscent woody sweet tonality. Adorable work, really. I also tend to agree with a bold person who dared saying there is something akin to Amarige d'Amour - the author, Bertrand Duchaufour, must have been surely mesmerized by the connotation that Guillotin and Guichard meant to invest in this release (or, the other way around, whichever of them was the first to try this consistency of a flanker). As his version of Amarige makes almost the same out of the idea behind the original perfume Amarige. Retain the spirit of irresistible liquid though supple femininity and marry it with a modern lightness and minimalism. Sorta this way, imho...

I find it to be an incredible disservice to an iconic fragrance when the house from which it comes has the insatiable urge to utilize the same name over and over again whether it be for innumerable flankers or insipid modern versions. The original and very unique L’Interdit was created for the equally special Audrey Hepburn who wore it for a year before it was launched to the public in 1957. Audrey was the very first actress whose face became the emblem for a haute couture fragrance, a brilliant associative strategy which boosted sales. All this being clarified, because Givenchy not only reissued L’Interdit in 2003, a baffling interpretation of the original but then in 2018 launched what became a series of ten fragrances, all flankers in one similar shape or questionable form with the eponymous name L’Interdit. Considering that beauty is a billion dollar business and much marketing and strategic promotion are part of its success, is it really that difficult to think of AN ORIGINAL name for a fragrance? Do we need myriad flankers that seldom reflect the original fragrance just because the name is popular and familiar? I treasure my original bottles of L’Interdit and don’t doubt for a minute that these current versions are lovely but let’s not confuse a classic with today’s glut of non stop flankers!

Spring Time is here and so is this. L'Interdit this is the 2003 reformulation. It came in the mail on Friday and I wore it already. I'm also waiting on the original vintage L'Interdit which people have compared to a fruitier Chanel No. 5. This one is pretty. It has all the flowers I like except magnolia. This is a fruity floral plain and simple. As it opens it's got peach strawberry and plum. Not at all like the fruit in Femme or Tresor, just sweet scents of mostly peach and strawberry. There's also a sweet honeysuckle early into the fragrance's first stage. Then it turns very flowery with scents of violets, roses, heliotrope, peonies and tuberose. A beautiful floral bouquet. It smells really good although it doesn't reach the heights of other floral masterpieces like Yves Saint Laurent Paris or Quelques Fleurs or even Estee Lauder Beautiful. But it's still really beautiful. The dry down has a lot of notes that support it well and keep it from having a short life. This lasts about 6 plus hours. It has amber and sandalwood, tons of oak moss and woods and a whisper of patchouli. It's a floral chypre and if you like perfumes that have tons of flowers and woods, you'll love it. A perfect spring fragrance.

I am glad i have it, but i am not floored by it at all. In all honesty, i am not even sure i like it, but i will spend more time with it after i give it some post shipping rest. Of course, this version of L'Interdit has zero to do with the current version. I haven't tried the original yet, but i doubt they are anything alike as well. I struggle connecting this 2003 version to L'Interdit line, to me it more belongs to Amarige collection. I see many similarities between this and Extravagance, in fact, first half an hour smells just like Extravagance few hours in. It is very faint, and disappears from skin completely in about 2 to 3 hours, without trace. Absolutely zero projection, so i will dare call this a big flop by Givenchy. I doubt this version was neccessary to begin with, and absolutely zero thought and creativity went into it. I collect older Givenchy fumes and for that reason i am glad i managed to obtain this at reasonable price, but when i want to smell like this, i will more likely reach for Extravagance instead.

This is one of the rare perfumes that smell better farther your nose is away from it. Powdery watery violet leaves opens this. At times it veers into the "I don't know about this" feeling and yet further away I catch a pleasant whiff of peach. Silage is past arms length and evolves better at a distance. Compared to the original there isn't one. Its not close. You could say its a nice relation, but the original was soft and demure. It smells really synthetic at close range, yet this is something I'm not repelled, going oh god no.. Try this for yourself. I can tell you if you have a young nose and a sweet gourmand lover , you will struggle with this. This 2003 version seems to be a struggle to enjoy for me, which is odd of givenchy scents. I usually have a great experience with them at first spray.

Givenchy, with it's stellar image failed to replicate the original version of this once beautiful scent. I wore this in the 70's and the memory of the fragrance lingers on. It was said that Audrey Hepburn wore this while filming Breakfast at Tiffany's and so it's popularity rose. I was highly disappointed to find that the reformulated version had an unpleasant mix of what smells like faux flowers, a distant cry from the original scent. My search is on for a vintage bottle of this haute couture fragrance of the past.

On me, this is a floral that feels subdued, contemplative. I really like the powdery-ambery -musky drydown. It is a fitting companion for rainy days, and I went through a grey period where this perfume was the only thing that I wanted to wear, so much so, that I went through two bottles of L'interdit. I had the body veil lotion but tossed it -- it turned pretty quickly.

had the old version - the one before 2003 and feel disappointed the new version spoils a legend:-) won't buy it again!!!

new version is bad...cheap smelling note...but,first version is beautiful..and i like it very very much...

I have a bunch of these from my mothers old collection if anyone is interested in purchasing one

If someone is interested, I’m selling one bottle