Gentleman (1974) by Givenchy

Reviewing again (I deleted the other review, it would help me a lot if you could give me a like, the review is also on my YouTube channel, Javier Díaz S. Medrano) and emphasising a couple of very important aspects I have noticed over time: Number 1: The note description on this Fragrantica page probably applies to a previous and intermediate formulation, I suspect the one with the silver cap in modern packaging. Both the first formulation and the current one have a lower number of notes; in the case of the modern one, we have a much lower number of declared notes but an incredibly complex cocktail of aroma chemicals, I don’t see it as bad at all given that a decent reformulation is better than the fragrance being discontinued, let the colossus of patchouli reign forever! Number 2: Connoisseurs of the original fragrance dismiss the current formulation as a fiasco, having poor longevity and even lacking nuances. I, being the owner of a bottle from December 2020, for a moment I thought it completely lacked the civet accord, but as I said previously and this applies to any perfume, nuances and longevity evolve with the entry of oxygen into the bottle. One must also take into account that some ingredients have been substituted and modified; the rose nowadays is based on aroma chemicals and the iris root is totally powdery, contrary to other reviews of the vintage that mention the tone of this last note is spicy, I imagine something similar to ginger or something like that… I won’t lie to you, when opening it it lasts 5 hours but after a certain ageing of the liquid (in my case about 5 months) the longevity already reaches about 8 or 9 hours on skin and the nuances of the notes have been amplified. By the way, if used in heat, around 25 degrees with sun, the perfume disappears from my wrists; this surely reflects a low quantity of oils and rather an aroma chemical construction. Returning to the review, Gentleman still feels out of this era, it remains very strongly animal, difficult to smell and wear and definitely not a ‘trendy’ perfume, and that is exactly what makes it valuable. It is different from everything currently existing in the market and for those of us who like vintage perfumery and are not convinced by most current creations, it suits us perfectly. However, the reformulation has indeed made it more usable. The perfume through time grants us an opening of animal honey (due to the contribution of the civet note) and liquorish, with slightly bright lemon tones and some rose in the background. Subsequently appears the king of the composition, a delicious chocolatey patchouli, giving way to the dry down of the fragrance which consists of main notes of Russian leather (it lacks the realism of modern leather and feels like a vintage garment, dirty, sweaty, impregnated with male body odour, because female body odour is cleaner, it is quite smoky as well), amber, patchouli still very strongly earthy and rancid civet. I even see it perfectly usable in the dry down by a well-dressed (and very daring, because I have been insulted on social media for using a perfume that smells a bit like vomit, as if it were impossible that I could like it, damn millennials) 20-year-old boy, given its sexy and elegant combo of domesticated Russian leather and amber in its final phase, with the aforementioned funky rancid civet nuances (don’t be afraid of it, it is a delight), traces of cinnamon and patchouli. Final line: This perfume is explicitly the sex BOMB of the 70s, a type in a tweed suit with lapels and very wide ties, tortoiseshell wayfarer glasses and oxblood brogue shoes with a moustache and sideburns denser than the element Osmio and on top of all that, listens to funk. Take note of its formulation and do not fear this work of art in its current formula; no, it is no longer the Leger composition, over time the leather it possesses has been domesticated and the civet note has been reduced. As I said previously, the modern formula seems a delight to me and I recommend it widely. However, always take into account that it is an extremely difficult perfume to wear nowadays, almost with its own personality and even could come to ‘harass’ young noses. There are few things so animal and aggressive in the current designer market (a couple to mention YSL KOUROS, CK Obsession for women…) that even aromatic fougères like Paco Rabanne Pour Homme, Azzaro and Drakkar Noir are children’s play compared to Gentleman. On the other hand, I recommend smelling it at least once even if you throw the blotter overboard, because it shows in a particularly well-worked way the civet or musk accord. Excellent.

The fragrance that separates the common man from the true gentleman. Givenchy played with marketing in the 70s, selling the idea that wearing this Eau de Toilette was enough to be a gentleman. For me, ‘gentleman’ always meant that upright, attentive, refined type, obsessed with rules to look good. But Gentleman is the opposite: a ferocious, seductive wolf without limits. Perhaps that was the brand’s real idea. As soon as it touches the skin, it smells like one of the dirtiest, boldest patchoulis that exist. Dark, it competes directly with Aramis, Cabochard, or Aromatic Elixir, and could even rival the beastly Bandit by Piguet. One spray is enough. After that animalic opening with leather, comes the cinnamon and honey, spicy with lily, herbal with moss and tarragon, woody with vetiver and cedar, all with musky and amber nuances. It’s impossible to replicate the original’s finish; the reformulation tries, but in the middle and base it feels flat and dry. It’s not bad, but it’s not the same. The first version had an incredibly high level with notes that can no longer be used today. Surprisingly, it has rose and jasmine, almost imperceptible at first, but which appear as the patchouli settles, as if that beastly man opens his heart after a few drinks. It’s strident but tames itself over time, never losing its personality. Very chameleon-like. My review is of the 30ml spray with the elongated silver cap, I believe from the 70s or 80s. A jewel without doubt.

I have tried the vintage (an 80s version) and the current one. Although it has been reformulated, the opening is identical, although the longevity on skin decreases much in the current version due to the logical reformulation that has ruined so many greats in perfumery like Azzaro Pour Homme. The 80s vintage lasted 24 hours. With that I think I have said everything. To its credit, it remains long-lasting. It is an extremely vintage scent and nowadays I believe it is the hardest of all my vintage perfumes to wear, even though I have Bogart, Paco Rabanne Pour Homme, Ted Lapidus, Versace L’Homme, etc. It smells heavy and very dated, not to say ‘old man’ directly, but what a quality scent… With certainty, it is the scent of another era, which feels increasingly distant in time. My wife tells me that when I wear this, I smell like an old book. I think within the vintage branch I prefer Azzaro or Cartier Santos (both still reformulated and killed by IFRA) because they seem more wearable nowadays than this 1974 classic. Nevertheless, I bought it and have it in my collection because its scent makes me feel a reminiscence of another time, and the truth is that I like it because I am a fan of retro scents. In cold climates is where it lasts the most.

It had been so long since I smelled such a delicious fragrance… a sample from Jerry Drake arrived and it was an ecstasy to recover that exquisite scent. I opened it as one would open an incunable, with respect and emotion… two sprays… and the magic happened… I spent hours smelling in small doses the golden elixir… a dose that offered me an intoxicating experience. This PERFUME is a masterpiece. What we have now, with the white transparent bottle, is like comparing quality porcelain with what they sell in China. Moreover, it’s not even the same olfactory family (the new one carries pineapple and pear). This perfume distils class, elegance, savoir-faire, a true educated gentleman, smiling, in love with life, with intelligent humour and savoir-vivre. It’s manly, delicious, unique… a legend from another time that is needed more than ever today. Au revoir.

Frankly extraordinary perfume. The reformulation differs in performance: the old one projected monstrously and lasted hours with natural, rancid, and vegetal musk tones; the current has synthetic nuances like geraniol and civetone, more refined. Pyramid: liquorish opening with honey and civetone, talc-dusted heart with lily and cinnamon, chocolatey patchouli, dry Russian leather base, closing with vanilla and a subtle rancid tone. Extraordinary. Wear it in cold weather, well-dressed, with bostonians, classic suits, afros and beards. Semi-formal or casual with a hippie vibe, but better elegant. For dates, even with young women if you dress with pride. Risky but with 20 turns in longevity and projection compared to most EDPs currently. Hard to wear but grows on you if you feel secure. Cheers!

The first one, the authentic Gentleman by Givenchy. An old-school jewel of men’s popular perfumery, with class, style, and presence. If you’re under 40, it will smell like an invasive, heavy, and outdated aroma, very ‘middle-to-upper-class dad’ from the 70s (which it truly was). The performance is classic: dozens of notes, citrus, honey, little flowers, heavy patchouli, oakmoss, civet, vetiver that doesn’t fade, musk, and sweet amber. Reformulated in 2024? The doubt is offensive, mate… if today it’s reformulated to the point of no return due to IFRA. A perfumery jewel. Pretending to understand and dismissing this is like acting cultured with only two years of plumbing training.

At first, a HEAVY fragrance, totally different from anything I’ve smelled since I started collecting perfumes. It makes me think of an older man accustomed to that powerful scent from the 70s, which has become part of his being. The rose and honey notes are loud and striking. I don’t know what other note gives that peculiar smell; I suppose anise or something animalistic. As it dries down, it’s more bearable and charming, but the opening smells strong. Don’t buy blindly; try first. If you collect, this should be in your collection: it’s a challenging scent, not for everyone.

A fantastic perfume, but use caution. The opening is fresh and woody; imagine an old barbershop, slightly sweet with a unique touch of rose. It screams ‘Man’ as loud as it can, sophisticated and confident. I wouldn’t recommend it if you’re under 30 or for casual settings; nothing modern, but timeless. As it dries down, it’s pure, cosy patchouli, ideal for late afternoon or evening without the heat. Don’t expect compliments; that’s not its aim. If I were to summarise: it smells like CLASSIC SOPHISTICATED MAN. Not a blind buy.

Sometimes I want to escape this hurtful world and hide from the rush and competitiveness of our histrionic society. My refuge is books, music, or certain perfumes that make me feel better. Givenchy Gentleman is one of them; it transports me to a place where life is light and free of burdens. I have no words for its grandeur, and I don’t care if it has been reformulated; I’ve known it since I was old enough to reason, and it remains a true work of art, one of the finest fragrances the world has ever known.

It’s an elegant, classy hit of patchouli, as its name suggests. I gave it to my father 20 years ago without knowing it was older than a corkscrew, but I, being a young lad then, fell in love with that fragrance. Today I see it as domesticated, especially its animalic note, and wearable without causing a scene. Inevitably, it reminds me of my father, which comforts me. I’m sure it will form part of my collection in the old school section in the future.

Thomas Shelby from Peaky Blinders is elegant, charismatic, and with a dark touch. Givenchy Gentleman EDT blends floral and woody notes that evoke sophistication and masculinity. It’s modern yet classic, reflecting Shelby’s timeless style. Both convey confidence and power. Imagine him in a bar scene with a flawless suit and cigarette smoke; the scent completes his presence with elegance and an intriguing, bold touch.

Some speak highly of this Givenchy classic, but it doesn’t convince me at all. I’m a lover of classics and barbershop scents, like Paco Rabanne Pour Homme or Loewe Esencia, but this smells like dandy shaving soap to me and just doesn’t stick. It’s not a bad fragrance; every nose is different and for many it’s a jewel, but I’ve given it several chances and, to be honest, I can’t.

I love it, apart from the dry-down which leaves me indifferent. It reminds me of an old bar of soap, but then comes the dry phase, and that truly fascinates me. I won’t analyse the notes, but the sensations: it brings to mind my father, clean and elegant. It doesn’t smell old, but vintage. I love it, I recommend trying it, especially if you’re in your 50s.

Despite seeing reviews and videos saying this fragrance is laughable compared to what it used to be, I never owned it and if I smelled it, I don’t remember. I decided to buy it. I don’t have the experience or olfactory acuity of many, but after 20 minutes on my arm, it now seems to take on an air of Boucheron Jaipur Homme. I own the EDP of Boucheron.

Sent from a decant, the first impression was strong: honey and liquor notes upfront, but it caught me off guard how weak it smells on the skin. Less potent than the Gentleman Society I wear daily. I’m not sure if I was sold a clone or if I’d already worn perfume that day, but I expected more impact. Will update later.