Houses you don't like in general? (Page 1 of 6)

Actually I don't think we have to apologize for our tastes, unless of course we're stupid enough to describe what we don't like in a rude manner 

(Oops - that was off topic)

Last edited by EK (2011-11-09 03:15:09)

CHANEL

THIERRY MUGLER

YVES SAINT LAURENT

(why my post can not contain only capital letters?)

I don`t like Chanel.

Too much old flowers, civet, aldehyds, patchouli, poopy jasmine... and WAAAY overpriced.

Last edited by The Swedish girl (2011-11-09 05:28:25)

I haven't found anything I like yet by Burberry.

The biggest one as far as this goes for me is Guerlain - mostly because I had such high hopes for their fragrances. It must be the 'guerlinade' that I don't like, which is odd as I believe it has some basis in tonka and vanilla, both of which I love.

I find I have a similar problem with Chanel as well. (asides from Allure EDT and Elixir Sensuel and Beige only). Generally their fragrances don't do anything for me.

Also Ralph Lauren & Issey Miyake - I have yet to find a fragrance I like from either.

YSL, DKNY and Versace. YSL in general just does not seem to agree with my skin :-(

Like inverwas said I dont really like avon  and most celebrity brands. Other than that I find very boring and generic Escada, Clinique, Estee lauder and Burberry, Nina Ricci. But they are a lot that I just dont care about, not that I hate. Clinique, EL and Burberry are mostly "hate companies" (Except london and burberry brit gold).They have some kind of ingredients I cant stand,as others companies have ingredients I adore (like chanel, dior, mugler...). Every house has its caracteristic type I guess

Those italian men are so sexy.  mmmmmmm

It would be easier to tell which houses that I do like -Dior and Guerlain. Possibly some more houses, but I need to test more to get a broader view of what the brands can give.

Some that are really not favourites and where I've tested quite many fumes are Chanel, Escada, YSL, Estee Lauder, Lancome, celeb's. The reason for testing these are mainly that they are or have been easily available when going shopping. The assortment of perfumes in shops is not very good these days where I live.

Chanel is really not a favourite. Of all their perfumes there is only one that agreeable with my skin and this is now discontiued, the No 5 EdC. Despite it's composition and that is was supposedly seen the freshest of them, this turned out to be the warmest, softest, creamiest and the yummiest of the different concentrations, still with a little twist and the citruses didn't show up on my skin. The other are either boring or bad-smelling despite a note composition that could have been great. Totally agree with Kristal about the Chanel smells being cold and non-feminine. For me they're more like roomsprays. I would however like to sample Coromandel.

I usually tend to find at least one scent from a house that is wearable for me. So it would be a lie to say that everything they do is crap, but a major part is certainly crap (*this space contains a variety and multitude of brands*) according to my preferences, they are clones of each other and nothing special.

Maybe other peoples skin bring out the differences between the perfumes, mine doesn't, so we should be "lucky" that there are houses to choose from so that each one of us have the opportunity to find something suitable. At least I'd like to think that.

Tired of trying to be diplomatic. They're not people, as been said earlier they're money making machines, and they keep cashing in big time while radically decreasing the quality at the expense of their customers: The skincream companies should stick with doing skincreams. The fashion companies should not make skincreams. Many of them both should not even try to make perfumes. Stick with what you're good at -that would ensure the profit in the end, and that is all that matters.

Last edited by Lingonberry (2011-11-09 11:59:23)