Pour Homme

VERY potent VERY smokey VERY leathery. I personally like it a LOT, but the majority may disagree. It opens with trumpet-hits then gradually de-crescendos to a smooth Jazzy tone. Absolutely a Winter/cold weather scent in my opinion as it is quite strong. I can also see myself wearing it on occasional Autumn days as well as it would blend well with the leaves and foliage. It goes very well with a leather jacket (any style) and a flannel shirt or turtle-neck. I could also picture this appealing to cigar/pipe smokers with a snifter of your favorite cognac or whiskey. I would, however, definitely advise to try it before you buy it - IF you ever happen to come by it, that is.

@TheLumineri. Have you changed your review? I seem to recall it mentioned citrus (as does Sirius86). And this would describe more the Lapidus PH. I would agree with you that it was smokey and leathery. Quite a heavy scent unlike the Lapidus PH. It would seem we are clearly now describing the same product. I have no recollection of citrus at all. My memory is not infallible for sure and it is 30 years since I used it for the last time. But that is definitely the bottle. How lucky you are to have a bottle after all this time? In any case thankyou for your clarifying this; and regards.

I used this perfume from the late '70s until the mid-80s. It was ahead of its time in terms of style and composition and made a massive impact on me. It saddens me so much that Lapidus stopped this one: it seemed peerless throughout its time. There isn't much that compares today, although Molton Brown's Black Pepper reminds me of it. TheLumineri and Sirius86: I don't remember citrus. I remember it being a heavy smokey scent. Are we describing the same fragrance?

@Jerry Can: I am certainly commenting on the correct fragrance. This fragrance was entered into the Fragrantica database because of MY email to the editor. The stock photos used above are of MY bottle - which I currently still have in my collection. Perhaps your olfactive memory is confusing this fragrance with another one you may have used in the 70s - 80s?

I'm lucky to have a small bottle of this. It's mind blowing as to how good this level of designer fragrance was back in the seventies. An uncompromising animalic leather, laden with castoreum, with one of the most captivating openings I've ever smelled with floral and aldehydic notes weaving in and out.

Sublime. Masculine, sexy, French. Sends me into a trance of memories. One of my all-time favourite fragrances, ever. I wore this constantly from 1980 up until the time they discontinued it. Bring it back please.

Just an amazing treasure, finest castoreum, oakmoss at its best, in perfect play with the olibanum. Really masculine, for a tough gentleman. No doubt, the best Lapidus by far. Mandatory. 10/10.

I love this scent ,i have some cigarres of Ted lapidus first version.like You'll have every animal in the woods on you. It's about 40, rather boyish. Magnifico.

Very dry no sweetness nor flower at all for me. Nothing to do with ANTAEUS or FARENHEIT in my opinion. Not too strong, it is not a powerhouse.

best leathery smoky fragrance feeling of classic businessman Simllar to Jules Christian Dior

I had this perfume in the early 80s. It was a true masterpiece. 10/10

In today's market Ted Lapidus Pour Homme would be a powerhouse. In terms of power I rate it above Bogart Furyo ( also animalic and good) and maybe Polo Green 1978 Vintage. ( excellent) . It is quite animalic due to the castoreum. While Aramis Aramis is quite good, Ted Lapidus Pour Homme I would prefer. Both use Aldehydes. If you can find a vintage bottle I suggest it. A vintage 200ml bottle can run about $250. Ted Lapidus Pour Homme is far better than Lapidus Pour Homme. Today I do not know which scent can compare to this one. Same for Bogart Furyo. Both are unique. While Jasmine is listed I cannot smell it.

on me this smells like straight patchouli. the other notes are there but completely overpowered unfortunately- instead of smelling like a gentleman i smell like a stick of incense.. i wonder if the sample vial i have is formulated differently to the full bottles, or perhaps has changed due to its age.

Much closer to the old-school barbershop style like Paco Rabanne, but intensely bitter — Caron, Flannel, Leather Jardin come to mind. A fiercely twisted mix of spices and incense, almost a mannerist kind of intensity you get in Yatagan, maybe Sung Homme. Bone-dry herbs, but on steroids, with some pepper or whatever to make it menacing — none of the citrus brightness you get in Brutal. In the end, I get the same kind of rejection I feel with Yatagan — it’s that old formula for masculine anger, before Antaeus, before Boss No.1, before Kouros came along with the necessary new dimensions, or at least what Givenchy Insensé offered: some kind of blend that gives character. Here you have more like the bristling, the threatening with scented sticks.

I noticed that spruce is listed as an ingredient, and I like Sitka spruce, but I did not detect the spruce in it. This TL fragrance is ok, but a little too heavy for me. It faintly reminds me of Farenheit, having a Johnson's Band-Aide-like smell to it. Perhaps if the castoreum and the olibanum were omitted as ingredients, then it would not be so strong.

Now if this doesn't put a tiger in your tank, I don't know what will. Most fragheads who have done their homework on powerhouses of the past are well familiar with Lapidus Pour Homme from 1987. However, there was a formidable predecessor from nine years prior, Pour Homme Ted Lapidus (or Ted Lapidus Pour Homme?), and it blows any current leathers out of the water in just one spray. TF Tuscan Leather is niminy-piminy compared to this behemoth. This opens with a conflagration of conifierous aldehydes and citrus (surprisingly retained for the most part in my vintage bottle) that soon yields to dirty jasmine and undulating frankincense. The real showstopper though is the hairy-chested leather and muscled castoreum, which suggests that this is the rugged sugar daddy to Hermes Bel Ami. I get major Fire Island Pines summer rental vibes. As it further dries down, Pour Homme gets smokier, more shadowy and sultry. A sultry bubble of uber-masculinity. I picture aviators, moustaches, tight Levi's, and a white t-shirt with a pack of Lucky Strikes rolled up in the sleeve. I can hear the underground classic from 1980, Foxy's "The Party Boys." I am actually in the Palladium, and a gent offers me a bottle of Rush (yellow label, with the lightning rod). What was that a fever dream, or was it a fantasy? It doesn't matter either way, as Pour Homme is the "lucky strike" of fragrances.

A very dry pungent astringent combination of leather oakmoss and incense plus herbal and lemony notes. Labnanum and Castoreum for a petroleum fecal bitter side. One step far to be an english Barbecue sauce. Maybe less than one step. Superdated aromatic 70s here. Make me think to a beach house in the pine forest. So pic nic under the pines, burning woods smoke, evernia prunastri... Nowdays i can figure this scent on a very super viril 70 years old man proud of his surviving erection. well built, even nice, but my god, this is good for the history of perfumery, but you have to be brave to wear it. I have got the metal sigar box like edt atomizeur of this fragrance remind me Arrogance pour homme and Hashish man by Veejaga and Juvena's men's style.

I found the first Gucci pour homme and Ted Lapidus pour homme in a great condition on a flea market. An older woman sold them, seems that those were the best scents to keep for a special time. Both are old tester bottles. Both in almost new condition, as if they were made yesterday. So I had a good chance to smell the original juice. First I tried the scent on a piece of paper and wasn`t impressed, even disappointed. Strong Leather. But then I tried this scent on skin, it opens very potent with a blast of leather, some kind of floral smokines, animalic. Very masculine, nothing for women. One of the best old school scents and for me the best.

@kl99 what makes you think this is superdated scent? Make no sense to me to call a fragrance dated. A fragrance is never dated, because those same ingredients used in this one are also still used today. And I'm also wondering why would a 70 years old man bath himself in such a classy masculine fragrance just to prove what? To go on a date maybe? I really doubt that. So please stop labelling fragrances as outdated, old school, old man scent..Don't make a damn sense.

I think someone claimed this one is similar to Leonard Pour Homme, and since I already own and enjoy that one, I don't feel obligated to seek out this one (and it never seems to sell for reasonable prices on ebay either). However, this one does not list carnation and LPH clearly has a strong carnation note. Another idea is vintage Van Cleef & Arpels Pour Homme, though I think the concentrated version of that one would be closer.