BORING: 1932 by CHANEL (2013)

Persolaise has just done a beautiful review for the new pure parfum extracts of Chanel’s 1932, Beige and Jersey: he always brings a fine-pointed and intuitive precision to his perfume analysis, and the piece almost made me want to smell this
perfume again, just to be sure.

I was personally unable to share his gracious equanimity in my own review of the latest Chanel, however, as I simply found it trite, vulgar.

Do you think they will ever do anything interesting again or is it just Duty Free home furnishings from now on?

Will Chanel be synonymous merely with ‘safety’, or will they ever be daring- poetic, even?

The Black Narcissus


There are plenty of reviews out there discussing its jewelled brilliance, its gentle, shimmering jasmineness. So read those for another viewpoint. But no matter how many times I smell this new release from Chanel, I can smell nothing but boredom. And irritation. And even unpleasantness. 

A flat, unaffecting, even somehow slightly farty, modern Duty Free Jasmine, underlaid with…something. Vetiver? Aldehydes? Other ‘flowers’.Who cares. ‘1932’ (stupid name)  is of no consequence. Slightly ugly. Just a calculatingly, substandard Bulgari Jasmin Noir. 


Bye Bye. 

View original post


Filed under Flowers

5 responses to “BORING: 1932 by CHANEL (2013)

  1. Persolaise

    Kind sir,

    I wondered why my ears were burning! Thank you very much for your generous words.

    ‘Safe’ seems to be the name of the game for Chanel at the moment. You’ll have noticed that even though I found the new extraits fairly attractive, I certainly didn’t think them bold.

    • I know. You were persuasively ambivalent. The vile word ‘farty’ is just too shocking and grotesque in the Chanellian context but it amused me. And in my opinion the perfume merits it.

  2. Tejas

    I’m think I need to give Jasmin Noir another try. Lol. It sounds better. I’m looking for a jasmine to wear in the scorching heat of Texas that won’t offend co workers and neighbors. I’ll skip the farty 1932. I really love your reviews.

  3. Lilybelle

    I’ve never smelled 1932, but I actually like the name. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were actually made with the ingredients of the perfumes of that era?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s