Aramis Classic Body Shampoo 150 ml

Product Information

That to me right there is just incredibly silly. WHO THE HELL CARES? I certainly wear what I like because it is I that likes it. My nose, my brain, my feels. I do respect others' noses and do not wear in public what I'd consider offensive, but what do I care or should we care about trends? Luna_J: the house of Aramis was moneytizing, not Chant. And not sure how I am disrespectful to chant, since Cabochard has also been blended by him... and I love Cabochard (as much as I hate Aramis, surprisingly... there's a little twist that was useless imo, and ruins it, unbalanced the perfect blend that Cabochard is, but that's just my opinion). This is an interesting article that provides food for thought, but I couldn't disagree more with Mr Bulliqi. Now regarding relevancy. Sure, it is old school chypre. And those are not modern, probably because a lot of restrictions make them hard to make like they used to so it's all about gourmands and woody florals. But let me tell you something, if this would be some niche brand you could slap 250€ price tag on this one, just make a bit nicer presentation. Everyone would be raving about it like with some Roja perfumes. But because it is Aramis and it's rather cheap it is somehow not cool? You tripping. In todays market this is really original and stands out from the crowd.

Since being introduced to the market in 1994, Havana has become a favourite with men who opt for a spicy and oriental fragrance. It has sandalwood as a base note, like Aramis for Men, but also features mandarin orange, basil and fir. This aftershave is extremely long-lasting and is more suitable for evening wear. No responsibility is taken for the correctness of this information. The listed offers do not constitute legally binding advertising claims of the merchants. Aramis still fascinates today with its ultra-specific top-note sparkle and high-octane leather base. Whenever I smell it, I think of both Diaghilev (which was based on Mitsouko) and Noir Epices. The former for its sour aldehydic citrus fireworks in the opening, and the latter for its frenetic hot-and-cold, sweet-and-sour “ice burn” effect. Do these facets smell pleasant, pleasing, pleasurable? To many current-day noses, likely not, but they are effective olfactory tools for creating drama and meaning in a scent. Aramis’ bitter powder stings like Santa Maria Novell’s Melograno, whilst its smoky patchouli simmers as in Antaeus. I think it's irrelevant that Aramis feels far away from current commercial trends, which BTW is totally a Captain Obvious observation. Of course it does. It came out in the mid-60s. The author tries to impose his opinion that the scent is dead in the water and is irredeemable. Just because something is not your style doesn't make it any less significant.What have Nicolai New York Intense (launched in 2014 - a modern fragrance with a retro vibe), Dior Eau Sauvage (from 1966) and Chanel Pour Monsieur edt (from 1955) in common? They are all considered masterpieces by none other than Luca Turin himself. And these are old school fragrances. And how does Mr Bulliqi know for a fact that the current trend in the fragrance industry won't be dated in say 20-50 years time? If you read perfume related articles online listing the most influential, trend setting and iconic men's fragrances of all time, most of these men's fragrances have existed for decades - long before the current modern trend in the perfume industry started. Really not a fan of Ellena, btw... the only fragrance I really admire of him being its Bel-Ami Vetiver flanker. But its a flanker, not a fragrance he started from scratch, so...

I usually enjoy Fragrantica articles. However, this one feels out of touch. The author is using grandiose sentence structure in an attempt to discredit the relevancy of Aramis. He claims that it is outdated and not relevant in the modern markets. Personally, I love Aramis and I think it's one of the greatest leather-chypres of all time, and still sells across the globe in massive numbers, several decades after its official release date in 1966, despite the ongoing (temporary) trend of dessert gourmands, aquatic and green fragrances or insipid and uninspiring citrus fragrances. The whole purpose of Mr Bulliqi's article was to evoke responses and opinions, which means people will clearly at some point, either agree or disagree - and that's perfectly fine.Just bough a bottle of Aramis. Recent batch. Smells still powerful, of course there has been reformulations but I think whoever made this made the best use of the materials at hand. Definitely old school mens fragrance. I wish there would be more oakmoss, but it is what it is. And aren't people allowed to say or think that this is "real music"? If people in all earnest think this is "real music" and dislike modern music, aren't they allowed to say it? Shouldn't freedom of opinion and freedom of speech include everyone - you and me included? It's not a "coincidence" that fragrance houses such as Creed, Tom Ford, Houbigant, Acqua di Parma, Roja Parfums (Roja Dove) and Rogue Perfumery (Manuel Cross) are inspired by old school perfumery. I wasn't referring to Eddie Bulliqi. I've already stated that I'm perfectly fine with people expressing their opinions - and that includes Mr Bulliqi himself. It's perfectly fine not liking or even hating Aramis. That's ok. Read my comments and you'll see that I'm not denying anyone their right to an opinion. My personal take on this article is this: We need to make a distinct separation between objective facts and subjective feelings. They are not the same. Some people think they are the same, but they aren't.