40 reseñas

Mostrando las más recientes primero.

• Benjamin Alamo - 1389

  February 16, 2026

  

  New formula for No. 5 EDT… are they going to ruin it?

• ssh-nc

  November 13, 2025

  

  I own the EDT. I keep it more out of affection than for the scent. It smells very much like talcum powder and ‘grandma’. I hate the opening; I’m not sure if it’s the aldehydes or the neroli, but I simply don’t like it. As it dries down, it becomes slightly sweeter, creamier, and more powdery.

• JavierSantana

  November 1, 2025

  

  It is probably the most iconic perfume in history. Although there are countless versions and formulas, the original from the 1920s is almost gone due to lax regulations back then and the lack of IFRA standards. That isn’t bad; in fact, it gave us safer perfumes. The reformulations aren’t so bad if you consider the final product. It smells of C10, C11, and C12 aldehydes, giving a waxy, abstract touch—the most famous aldehydic bouquet that inspired many other classics. As it dries, notes of wood, flowers such as rose, ylang-ylang, and indolic jasmine emerge, alongside a classic chypre base with moss, musks, and amber. The animal notes smell to me of a slight indole, like urine or fluids, giving it a sexual edge. Many call it feminine, but I see it as unisex, though men might need more confidence to wear it. Similar scents include Amouage Gold, Jovan Musk, and Aramis, with masculine hints. Given how unisex everything is nowadays, it’s becoming normal for men to wear it in some places. The performance is excellent in any version. I stick with the EDT (which is very expensive in Mexico) or the Eau de Cologne, as the EDT feels overwhelming to me. It’s an icon with an unjustified price; with that money, you could get a Coco Mademoiselle Intense instead. The Fraiche version does a good job but irritates the skin by violating the IFRA compromise on an ingredient. I recommend diluting it to 10% or less; even then, it performs well.

• Cosmoloid

  August 21, 2025

  

  Chanel has produced so much that a catalogue would be needed to distinguish exactly which version is which. Fragrantica doesn’t specify well and groups fragrances simply because they are EDT, Parfum, or EDP, falling short for brands like Chanel. No. 5 has had many versions, and talking about the generic Eau de Toilette doesn’t help you know what it smells like, as the reformulations are there. My review is of the EDT bottle shown in the Fragrantica photo. If I’m not mistaken, it’s from 2004, when Chanel still didn’t have Les Exclusifs and scents like N22, Bois des Îles, Gardenia, and this No. 5 formed part of the arsenal. These EDTs are the most faithful to the original and they weren’t yet worried about adapting them to new times (adding more citrus and florals at the expense of the rich, powerful bases of before). Fragrantica is correct to classify it as woody. The opening, apart from the aldehydes, is a potent mix of wood and flower that leaves no one indifferent. But it is the base that predominates, loaded with vetiver, patchouli, civet, and everything so mixed it’s hard to separate the ingredients. I don’t want to, nor can I, analyse it all, but the idea is to distinguish this early 2000s version from the others. In my opinion, it is of great quality and fidelity. It is the scent that many inexperienced people would say (incorrectly) smells like an older lady. Here, Chanel had no restrictions, and I smell real ingredients, without fantasies of plum, mango, or sea salt. A marvel.

• Carcanuelo

  May 3, 2025

  

  One should try the original with the original ingredients (I did) and see the differences. It’s obvious that regulatory rules up to the EU’s psychopathy don’t allow it. The main side effect is longevity, which is considerably reduced. Olfactorily, it is an overwhelming white floral (jasmine) with slight citrus touches of bergamot and ylang-ylang, and a woody/musky base (sandalwood and three types of musk) plus three types of aldehydes (C10, C11, and C12) that give it that characteristic vintage touch. Rose and iris undermine the whole. It is an icon in the history of perfumery but difficult for new generations to digest.

• Perla Vencis

  September 18, 2024

  

  I don’t want to be simplistic in describing this beautiful scent. On my skin, the citrus marks the entire evolution and I love them because I find them more bearable than its predecessor. For me, the Eau Parfum has more development; the Eau Toilette is less floral and woody, more linear and easy to wear. It can be used at any time or occasion. I feel the drying down is aromatic and powdery. It has its classic touch but is contemporary; one must know how to wear it.

• misscece

  May 30, 2024

  

  Chanel, Chanel… what a disappointment. What happened to this EDT? IT DOESN’T LAST AT ALL! 🙁 I feel super sad and disappointed with Chanel’s poor quality now. It’s not what it was, and I don’t think it will ever be again. The world of perfumery is so saturated that raw materials can’t go on, and you have to pay a fortune for a good perfume that lasts. Who would have thought, Chanel? Previously, the EDT was luxurious and long-lasting; now there’s nothing left. Still, it will always be one of my favourites. Fresh, feminine. I highly recommend the body cream to increase its longevity.

• blueowl

  May 10, 2024

  

  I don’t know what’s going on with Chanel, but the recent version of this toilette doesn’t last at all. The quality and longevity of fragrances have dropped so much that it’s not worth paying the price for such low quality. It’s a pity. The same happened with Guerlain perfumes; it seems to be a trend in perfumery to reduce longevity so we use them up faster and they sell more. At least in these cases, that’s how it seems to me.

• Benjamin Alamo - 1389

  October 31, 2023

  

  If you like the drying down of the No. 5 EDP, this is the ideal, even with more complexity. The first minutes smell of soapy iris talcum with lemon. In the EDT, the floral bouquet of jasmine and lilies doesn’t stand out at all. As it dries, the lemon disappears and the soapy sensation becomes dirty, highlighting the animal side with a hint of oakmoss; here there is no vanilla sweetness or the spark of sandalwood found in the EDP. Chanel No. 5 EDT is beautiful; it would be incredible if they hadn’t lowered its performance so much. It has moderate, intimate projection and lasts 4 to 6 hours, but after the first hour it sticks to the skin, which is why many call it ‘intimate’. In Argentina, there is Mary Stuart from the 1930s, which follows the line of the Parfum and the EDT is 90% identical. I see it as a masculine No. 5; that soapy iris goes very well with current perfumery, ideal for autumn or fresh springs, it feels like a warm hug, try it and it won’t disappoint.

• Benjamin Alamo - 1389

  October 19, 2023

  

  If you like the dry-down of No. 5 EDP, this is ideal, even with more complexity. At first, it smells of soapy iris talcum with lemon. In the EDT, the floral bouquet of jasmine and lily of the valley barely stands out. As it dries, the lemon disappears and the soapy sensation becomes dirtier, highlighting the animal part with a hint of oakmoss; here there is no vanilla sweetness nor the spark of sandalwood of the EDP. Chanel No. 5 EDT is beautiful; it would be incredible if they hadn’t lowered its performance so much. It has moderate to intimate projection and lasts 4 to 6 hours, but after the first hour it sticks to the skin, which is why many call it ‘intimate’. In Argentina there is an equivalent called Mary Stuart, from the 30s, which follows the Parfum line; the EDT is 90% identical. I see it as a No. 5 masculine; that iris talcum goes great with current perfumery, ideal for autumn or fresh springs, it feels like a warm embrace, trying it will not disappoint.

• tapia1550544

  October 6, 2023

  

  A very vintage fragrance, I don’t like it at all… but… it was my father’s favourite and he gave it to me, which is why it has a special place in my heart.

• tapia1550544

  October 2, 2023

  

  A very vintage fragrance, I don’t like it at all p-e-e-e-r-o… it was my father’s favourite and he gifted it to me, which is why it has a special place in my heart.

• jerry drake

  August 15, 2023

  

  We all know Chanel isn’t what it used to be, but while we wait for it to reclaim its glory, there are two options: go for the high-end or grab a vintage. And when you’re gifted an 80s miniature, a smile follows you all day; people crossing your path wonder what that smiling person has on. It’s fascinating how Chanel has created a vast No. 5 family to please the faithful, attract the young and new, and invest millions in advertising to keep the scent relevant. Incredible, truly. But vintage opens another dimension. Hasn’t everyone encountered No. 5 at some point? It’s the quintessential classic chypre floral. What makes Number 5 unique is that everyone finds something different: some see it as cold and inaccessible, others as warm and cosy, foamy or dense. Classic, yet it goes with jeans, a good white tee, a smile, and a pearl necklace. I’ve always seen it as a classically feminine fragrance, like red lipstick and matching nails. If aldehydes bother you, this perfume will give you trouble; if not, you have a good chance of liking it, or at least you should try it. Bathed in the golden light of musk and musk, with the crisp edge of aldehydes like a light touch of cinnamon or burnt caramel, the flowers come to life quickly. Under my nose, a duo of roses and jasmine with iris powder that seem alternatively spicy, gourmand, and sensual. No. 5 has already taken hold of your skin: feminine elegance with a touch of animal. Who knew a wild beast was lurking beneath that elegant exterior? Smelling the 80s vintage is like discovering the wild past of a relative you idealised as chaste and perfect. It has libido, it’s rounded, alive, with an extra dimension that makes it more elusive and tempting. The dry-down takes a bit and leaves me with a mossy musk with a hint of avant-garde amber. The florals remain in harmony with the base; the volume is less, but the texture is finer. A work of elegant, timeless, noble, classic, confident art with unsurpassable feminine seduction. Chanel No. 5 is a winner, it will remain one, and I hope it stays with us while the earth keeps spinning with people perfuming themselves upon it.

• Kassy007

  April 20, 2023

  

  I love this fragrance. It’s a classic, sensual, refined, and floral. However, I feel that with the latest reformulations, it has lost the longevity and sillage of previous years. I have it, but it doesn’t last. The same goes for the Eau de Parfum.

• LosPerfumesDeJavi

  December 31, 2022

  

  I adore them and own the Eau de Parfum, the Parfum, L’Eau, and this Eau de Toilette, with this being my least favourite, not because it’s bad, but because its longevity is skin-deep after 15 minutes. I have a 50ml bottle of vintage Eau de Toilette from Splash (late 90s) and since autumn started, I wear it every night after a shower because it leaves a very clean sensation. It smells like luxury soap, one of those 5-star hotels (which I imagine smells like this, I’ve never been in one 😂). It smells clean, soapy, luxurious. Brad Pitt did the ad a few years ago, and they should label this perfume as unisex to encourage men who fear labels to use it (in fact, no Chanel No. 5 has a gender label, neither on the box nor the bottle, which I find fantastic).

• Amarilisbelladona

  February 25, 2022

  

  I adore this Chanel; it is the version I like most by far and the one most similar to the original Eau de Cologne I knew thanks to my mother, who had a huge 200 ml bottle in the 80s and used to put it on me secretly. Obviously it was impossible, because it was a bomb; she would perfume her room and almost immediately she would shout at me from the living room, and even then it was splash, which is supposed to project slower than spray, but it was potentissimo, I had just enough time to run away. Bored of my mother’s pranks in 1986, she gifted me a bottle of Eau de Parfum. Used to the Cologne, at first it was disappointing, it wasn’t the same, and although it was more potent than the current one, it lacked something: depth, the animal point, that blending with your skin and with its heat radiating the fragrance. Its dry-down was very different; it lacked that powdery, sweet, soapy and slightly delicate animal point. Logical! It lacked the civet, the musk and the orris root that the Eau de Toilette and the Cologne do carry, besides these are more vanilla-scented. The Eau de Parfum is more bitter, less vanilla-scented, more citrus, dry and rough. Look, I love it and always have a bottle, I use them together, but the one most similar to the Cologne is the Eau de Toilette, and although it is more animal than the EDP, it dries more delicately, sensually and I like it more. The new flankers are different perfumes. At that time I was an inexperienced child and didn’t know the difference, but I was clear that I liked the Eau de Toilette more and I still do. What does it smell like? I’ve been using it for 35 years and I’m not able to explain it as I would like. Chanel No. 5 is a floral so well amalgamated that the union of its parts gives an inseparable whole. For me, the note that most differentiates it from the other versions is the civet; back in the day it gave it a brutally animal point that is now much softer, more benevolent, because otherwise current noses couldn’t support it. Thanks to the civet still being there, it maintains that animal point that fell in love with me back then and keeps me in love to this day, and what makes it blend with your skin in such a characteristic way. I like it so much that I’m afraid they will reformulate it and end up removing the civet, as it is less used now although it is synthetic. It’s not because it’s a forbidden animal note; I might be wrong, but I think it’s because it gives that characteristic smell that many people identify as ‘old lady smell’. I don’t want to enter my opinion on that term, I’ll just say that using it is a lack of education and ignorance, that old ladies smell wonderful and that age is a degree and that since you are born your future is to age. My old lady smelled of Soir de Lune, of Kelly, of Narciso Rodriguez, of Itzia, of L’Interdit, of Splendida Magnolia, of Caleche, of Alvarez Gómez, of Eau de Rochas and many others; she alternated the moderns with her classics, the EDPs with the fresh litre colognes in summer and understood perfumes more than many people here, especially because 70 years of perfuming is almost a century watching fads come and go and she had countless anecdotes and stories to tell. Today the old lady is me and tomorrow it will be this whole generation that will have to stock up on their favourites on eBay because they will almost all be discontinued, they will have disappeared to make room for new fads and that is the wonderful thing about perfumery that surprises us continuously with new creations, some so exceptional that they endure in time surviving any trend and Chanel No. 5 is one of those timeless and eternal fragrances.

• Amarilisbelladona

  January 30, 2022

  

  I adore this Chanel; of all the versions, it’s by far the one I like most and the closest to the original Eau de Cologne, which I knew thanks to my mother, who had a huge 200ml bottle in the 80s and would put it on me secretly. The ‘secretly’ part was impossible because it was a bomb; she would perfume herself in her room and almost immediately shout from the living room, and even then it was Splash, which is supposed to project less than the spray, but it was potentissimo, giving me just enough time to run away. Bored of my mother’s pranks in 1986, she gifted me a bottle of Eau de Parfum. Used to the Eau de Cologne, the Eau de Parfum was a bit disappointing at first; it wasn’t the same, and although it was more potent than the current one, it wasn’t a matter of power; it lacked something: depth, that animal point, merging with your skin and using its heat to radiate its fragrance. Its dry-down was very different; it lacked that musky, sweet, talc-like, and slightly soapy point. Logical! It lacked the civet, musk, and orris root that the Eau de Toilette and Eau de Cologne do carry, plus these are more vanilla-like. The Eau de Parfum is more bitter, less vanilla-like, more citrusy, dry, and rough. Look, I love it and always have a bottle; I use them together, but the one closest to the Eau de Cologne is the Eau de Toilette; even though it’s more animalic than the EDP, it dries more delicately, is more sensual, and I like it more. And the new flankers are different perfumes. At the time, I was an inexperienced kid and didn’t know the difference, but I was clear that I liked the Eau de Toilette more, and I still do. What does it smell like? I’ve been using it for 35 years and can’t explain it as I’d like. Chanel No. 5 is a floral so well amalgamated that the union of its parts gives an inseparable whole. For me, the note that most differentiates it from other versions is the civet; at the time, it gave it a brutally animal point; now it’s much softer, more benevolent, because otherwise, current noses couldn’t handle it. And thanks to the civet still being there, it maintains that animal point that fell in love with me back then and makes it merge with your skin in such a characteristic way. I like it so much that I’m afraid they will reformulate it and end up removing the civet; it’s already less used, even if synthetic; it’s not because it’s a forbidden animal note; I might be wrong, but I think it’s because it gives that characteristic smell that many people identify as ‘old lady smell’. I don’t want to enter my opinion on that term; I’ll just say that using it is a lack of education and ignorance, that old ladies smell wonderful, and that age is a degree and that since you’re born, your future is to age. My old lady smelled like Soir de Lune, Kelly, Narciso Rodriguez, Itzia, L’Interdit, Splendida Magnolia, Caleche, Alvarez Gómez, Eau de Rochas, and many others; she alternated moderns with her classics, the EDPs with the fresh litre colognes in summer, and understood perfumes better than many people here, especially because 70 years of perfuming is almost a century watching fads come and go, and she had an infinity of anecdotes and stories to tell. Today, the old lady is me, and tomorrow it will be this whole generation that will have to stock up on their favourites on eBay because they will be almost all discontinued, having disappeared to make room for new fads, and that is the wonderful thing about perfumery that continually surprises us with new creations, some so exceptional that they endure in time, surviving any trend, and Chanel No. 5 is one of those timeless and eternal fragrances.

• larilara

  August 13, 2021

  

  Timeless elegance. When an artist creates a work of art, they don’t think about something passing; they seek to transcend time. This perfume achieves that longed-for artistic goal; it has 100 years but is current, has several notes, and none predominate over the others; its smell is characteristic alongside the EDP. Its opening is soapy and stinging due to the aldehydes alongside the ylang-ylang, then come the neroli and iris giving that characteristic talc-like smell. It’s elegant, for a woman of 20 or more, it merges with the wearer’s own skin aroma; in my case, the rest of the flowers aren’t perceived, and at the end, a faint moss and musk, with a soft sillage and moderate longevity in winter. I’ll wait for spring to see its evolution. It’s for a woman of 20 or more because it requires a certain olfactory experience, to be used on semi-formal occasions, with a tailored suit, something elegant and timeless. Works of art do not expire.

• larilara

  July 21, 2021

  

  Timeless beauty. When an artist creates something, they seek to transcend time, and this perfume achieves it: it has 100 years and still sounds current. It has many notes, none dominate, and its scent is the classic always, just like the EDP. It starts soapy and sharp due to the aldehydes and ylang-ylang, then the neroli and iris come out giving that characteristic powdery touch. It is elegant, for women aged 20 and over, it blends with your skin scent (in my case I don’t notice the flowers, just a faint moss and musk at the end), with a soft trail and moderate longevity in winter. I’ll wait for spring to see how it evolves. I recommend it for women 20+ because it requires a certain olfactive experience, ideal for semi-formal occasions, with a tailored suit, something elegant and eternal. Works of art do not expire.

• lauraaaaa86

  June 19, 2019

  

  Legendary, I love it!

• Miguel83

  December 10, 2018

  

  Chanel No. 5 is the first perfume to use a direct chain of aliphatic aldehydes C10, C11, and C12 (organic compounds with a particular aroma). But in reality, it’s difficult for an enthusiast to value why the greatness and prolonged life of this perfume exist. Perhaps it’s due to the quality of its formula and the exact, balanced proportion of its elements. I also understand that its innovative character helped keep it alive, thanks to countless subsequent fragrances that have used its same innovations over decades. That’s why I think Chanel No. 5 has remained and continues today in our retina, with the same strength as 70 years ago.

• LARGION

  June 10, 2018

  

  My mother has No. 5 EDP and EDT, both from somewhat old versions (they will be from the 70s). The Parfum indeed doesn’t have a particularly pleasant opening: it’s like a bombardment of fragrances attacking the olfactory senses, but a greatness and refinement are perceived. I don’t want to elaborate on the Parfum, as it’s for another forum. The EDT does have a more attractive opening: it’s precious, like a pink cloud that invades but refreshed with a bit of citrus and bergamot necessary to bridge the powdery aldehydes and a seat of something like animal skin, which I imagine is given by the musk and civet. I’m not a specialist in its history, I don’t know which was the first created, but the EDT seems more rounded in the intention of its creator. They are like mother and daughter, both eternal beauties.

• marisol santilla

  November 2, 2017

  

  A classic that can remain valid forever… it depends very much on each woman’s pH; this perfume settles to discomfort, or it settles to fascinate you; the latter is my case. I have Eau de Premiere, which I love, but this still has the highest degree in everything they want to attribute to it. It’s like when we say of a difficult person to deal with, without being bad… ‘you love them or you hate them’. Well, this is something like that… ‘you love it or you detest it’. 10 absolute.

• franciscorodriguez1980

  February 23, 2017

  

  It’s the best of all time; I am a faithful admirer of beauty, and that perfume is the best and most delicious, reformulated or not, it’s very good. Its simplicity is so complex that very few know how to admire it as it is, like with a work of art: to the ignorant eye, it’s nothing, but before the one who knows, it’s an invaluable jewel. In short, it is and will be the best of all time, say what you say.

• Yadorán d'Vinea

  October 8, 2016

  

  No. 5 in Eau de Toilette is a worthy nod to history. While the original from 1921 was replaced in the 80s by the EDP by Jacques Polge (an excellent re-reading, but not the same), this EDT is the only way to touch the original Beaux formula, as the Eau de Cologne (the Marilyn one) has disappeared and the Parfum is so expensive it serves only for collection. It is a brilliant idea to soften that ever-present ‘heavy’ essence; here the version is light and versatile, without falling into the mediocrity of today’s fresh citrus. If you know the original, you will recognise it instantly: it is a calmer version of the EDP, with a more powdery and woody touch, betting on iris and civet instead of the rose and jasmine of the other, but keeping that ethereal magic of aldehydes and ylang-ylang. The best part is that, ironically, it lasts longer on skin than the EDP; it lasts all day, although its trail is more contained and appropriate. It is an elegant and functional alternative (although if you seek total versatility in the line, the Eau Premiere wins), preserving the spirit of 95 years. It is not discreet; it can be intense for sensitive noses and nothing natural, but it remains the wonder that inaugurated Chanel, although the new sometimes overlook it.

• Yadorán d'Vinea

  October 3, 2016

  

  Chanel No. 5 in Eau de Toilette truly deserves full praise. Previously, the original Chanel formula was discontinued in the 1980s to make way for the Eau de Parfum, a reinterpretation of Ernest Beaux’s creation by Jacques Polge, which is essentially a younger sibling of the 1921 classic. This EDT is, in fact, the only way to access Beaux’s original recipe (do not be misled; Polge’s version remains excellent in my opinion), as the Eau de Cologne vanished decades ago (that was the one Marilyn Monroe wore) and the Parfum is hard to find and very expensive, making it more suitable for collecting than daily wear. It is an incredible fragrance; taming the intensity of No. 5 was a simple yet brilliant idea, because even back then, many found it ‘heavy’. This EDT forgets that flaw to be light and versatile, without falling into the mediocrity of today’s fresh citrus perfumes. If you know the No. 5, you will understand this one easily, as it is so well-crafted that it feels like a calm version of the Eau de Parfum (or the Parfum, if you prefer), yet with distinct nuances: here, the woody notes stand out more, and it is much dustier (the Eau de Parfum shone with its rose and jasmine, whereas this one focuses on iris and civet; though both feature ethereal aldehydes and ylang-ylang). Ironically, the EDT lasts longer on the skin than the Eau de Parfum: we are not talking about minutes; the difference is huge, lasting all day, although its sillage is more modest. The Eau de Parfum projects well only in the first few hours before fading, while the sillage of this EDT is just right. It is a functional, elegant, and versatile option (though if you seek total versatility within the No. 5 line, the Eau Premiere would be better), and it retains the soul of the original from 95 years ago. It is not discreet; even as an EDT, it can overwhelm sensitive noses and is far from smelling like natural skin, and of course, with nearly a century of life, its charm has been lost to some newcomers, but the No. 5, even so, remains the wonder of perfumery that Chanel began.

• Portrait of a lady

  June 1, 2016

  

  I’m a man, but I’ve tried Chanel No 5 several times out of curiosity. There’s nothing new to say about this classic: despite being from the 1920s, it remains timeless and will continue to do so. I don’t know why, perhaps because it was the first to use aldehydes or simply due to its scent, but I’m not an expert. What I do know is that it has its own atmosphere, very elegant and feminine. I can’t say more because I’ve never worn it with any real attention; only my impressions after testing it on my skin when I had the chance.

• MissNishu

  February 6, 2015

  

  This perfume promises to be sexy, elegant and sensual, but it lacks any of those qualities. These days there is so much innovation, and this one falls short.

• gmoranch

  January 6, 2015

  

  Aldehydes, synthetic and old-fashioned. It has nothing sexy or attractive about it; it’s heavy and overwhelming. A fragrance that is simply out of date.

• Tania rdz

  January 1, 2015

  

  A brutal scent, unbearable for me. I was given it as a gift but have never worn it because it smells awful.

• laenha

  November 28, 2014

  

  My mother’s classic. It feels a bit strong to me due to that powdery touch, but it is incredibly elegant and brings back lovely memories of her. Totally excellent.

• Haruna

  November 23, 2014

  

  A legend whose history I know almost by heart, though to be honest, I would never add this to my collection as the notes just don’t suit my skin. It is long-lasting, recognisable, and has a great trail. It suits mature women who love Chanel’s sophisticated austerity. It is a benchmark of an era of change, with an Art Deco bottle symbolising the freedom and sober elegance of women.

• Haruna

  November 21, 2014

  

  One of the classic and mythical perfumes, of which I know many details, almost all its history, and which, to be honest, would never figure on my wish list, as its notes don’t suit my skin. It is a long-lasting scent, particularly recognisable, with excellent longevity and good trail; the number 5 suits women (predominantly mature) who love the sophisticated austerity of the Chanel house. The iconic fragrance is a mandatory reference of a stage of transition and contundent changes in the female world. The Parfum bottle is of Art Deco style and announces the insertion of women in spheres that were previously considered exclusive to the male sphere, which is why it is considered a symbol of freedom and sober elegance.

• Modadicta

  September 22, 2014

  

  An eau de toilette that deserves the best reviews. My experience was different from the eau de Parfum, which I didn’t like at first. This one won me over straight away. It is less ‘heavy’ but retains all the opulence and elegance of No. 5. I finally mustered the courage to try it in the perfumery today. Upon application, it smells slightly soapy, as they say, like powder right at the start. Then, the floral notes (ylang-ylang, jasmine, rose, sandalwood) become more pronounced in a delicate yet imposing way. Later, after a few hours, the vetiver and amber take centre stage. The lemon is present but discreet. I’ve worn it for nearly four hours and it’s still there. The trail goes beyond the arm but doesn’t fill the room; the longevity is good. It is my unrequited love: I admire it but didn’t want it. Now the eau de Toilette has made an impact on me. I love it and want it, but I will wait for my moment. Time will tell if we can be together.

• Modadicta

  September 14, 2014

  

  An Eau de Toilette that certainly deserves the highest praise. My experience with this was very different from the Eau de Parfum, which I didn’t like at all initially. In contrast, the Eau de Toilette fell in love with me at first sight. It is less ‘heavy’, yet retains all the opulence and elegance of Chanel No. 5. In fact, I missed many opportunities to try it until today, in the perfumery, I finally mustered the courage to buy it. I applied it directly to my skin, and in the first phase, I feel it slightly soapy, just as one comment mentioned. Yes, it smells of talc and soap at first. Then, in the second phase, the floral notes emerge one by one: ylang-ylang, jasmine, rose, sandalwood… all delicately but impressively. In the third phase, after several hours, the vetiver and amber take centre stage. The lemon is noticeable in all phases, but discreetly, only complementing and enhancing the others. I’ve worn it for nearly four hours and I still feel its aroma. The trail radiates beyond my outstretched arm, without filling the whole room, but the longevity is good. I know I said I wouldn’t want to use Chanel No. 5. It is my platonic love (in the true sense): I like it, I love admiring its beauty, but disinterestedly, without ambition to possess it. I stand by my words: Chanel No. 5 is my platonic love, but the Eau de Toilette has definitely impacted me. I love it! I’ve added it to my wish list, but I’ll wait whatever it takes. Come on, I’m not the one to use it right now. I’ll wait; time will tell if we can be together. But not yet.

• SeleneHdez

  March 14, 2014

  

  Finally, it has returned to me! I bought the 50ml version yesterday and will take great care of it. Comparing the versions: the Eau Premiere is very fresh but doesn’t last; the Toilette is citrusy, sweet and very long-lasting; the Eau de Parfum is more soapy, floral and also has great persistence.

• Sissy Emperatríz

  January 21, 2014

  

  Super elegant, refined, and a strong floral scent with lots of vetiver and sandalwood giving it immense power. It has a transcendent and almost eternal trail. It is a night perfume, not for the day, due to its strength and projection. It makes you feel secure and like a queen in any situation.

• merly

  September 30, 2013

  

  A gift that has become my signature scent for important meetings; it makes me feel elegant and balanced, steering me away from my overly sweet side. I’ve worn it for nearly eight years, and with only a quarter left, it still smells exactly as it did on the first day. Simply excellent.

• SeleneHdez

  April 21, 2013

  

  This was my first perfume, the one my mother used which I eventually finished. I wore it at university and on dates; it was absolutely enchanting with an eternal longevity. You don’t need much of it; it projects incredibly. It smells super feminine, slightly powdery and floral (I can clearly distinguish the ylang-ylang and neroli). I loved it so much that in the end, I settled for the Eau Premiere.

• SeleneHdez

  April 3, 2013

  

  This was my first perfume, the one my mother used which I eventually finished. I wore it at university and on dates, and what can I say, it was absolutely enchanting. It lasts an eternity if you don’t overdo the quantity; it has incredible longevity and projection. It smells super feminine, slightly powdery and floral (I can clearly distinguish the ylang-ylang and neroli). I would love to have it again, although I don’t know if this version or the Eau Premiere which I loved just by trying it. Edit: In the end, I settled for the Eau Premiere.