CHANEL NO. 22: Described as “the quintessential aldehydic fragrance” (Bois de Jasmin), “perfection” (I Smell Therefore I Am) and “infinitely refined” (Haute Parfum), No. 22 is a softer, warmer, more subtle version of its No. 5 predecessor.
Where No. 5 is a crystal vase under a spotlight, No. 22 gleams like a white porcelain bowl in a gush of morning sun. The creamy floral grouping of jasmine, tuberose and ylang-ylang hooks up with the Grasse rose and poses for its soft-focus close-up, a powdery iris dusting the mix with what can only be said to be a jolt of feminine wiles.
Then there’s that ridiculously smooth vanilla incense at the base. I’ve often knocked the seemingly trite, cliched and/or overdone usage of vanilla in fragrances (“I’m stuck on what to add to the base of my new fragrance — oh, I know! Vanilla!”), but here in No. 22 it . . . fits. It wouldn’t be quite right any other way.
What seems to truly set No. 22 apart from the competition, however, is the inclusion of vetiver — a near tactile layer of grass under the flowers, the smoke and the vanilla that transforms what might have been a flat 2-D sweet floral into a fleshed out 3-D “Oh, what is that you’re wearing? Give it to me!” experience.
It gets a little “soapy” for my taste as it rounds the bend and heads towards the finish, but that just kind of amps up the feminine aspect — by the end of the evening, No. 22 is light and breezy, still chatty and fresh while all the perfumes around it are wilting into piles of sawdust, dried up mosses or tired spices.
I’m not as impressed with No. 22 as I am with, say, Shalini, and while I’ll actually wear Shalini myself on occasion, I’m not at all interested in springing for my own bottle of No. 22. That said, it’s definitely a very well-crafted piece of work and I’d have zero problem sitting next to it throughout a lengthy dinner party.
Listed scent notes (according to BaseNotes) are: aldehydes, jasmine, tuberose, ylang-ylang, rose, vetiver, vanilla and incense. Chanel No. 22 was originally released in 1922 (or 1928, accounts vary) but is now reformulated and a part of the Chanel Les Exclusifs series. It can only be purchased in Chanel boutiques (or on eBay . . . for now).
PARFUMS DE NICOLAI SACREBLEU INTENSE: For a couple of hours, Sacrebleu Intense is mesmerizingly beautiful — rich, full, deep . . . like a roomful of cellists all playing the same sad, sweet song, but then everything starts to sound (or, in this case, smell) a little off — too much noise, too many notes crammed up close together and discordantly overlapping.
It’s a shame, too, because when the stuff is pulling together it really shines, but the last half of the scent’s lifespan is a sloppy mess — well, until you hit the patchouli/balsam drydown, which deserves some praise.
Maybe the original, less pumped-up Sacrebleu is better, less messy, than this Intense version?
Notes: mandarin orange, red berries, carnation, tuberose, cinnamon, jasmine, peru balsam, sandalwood, tonka bean and patchouli. Wow. See what I mean? It’s almost an embarrassment of riches, and it wears like the equivalent of too many showy pieces of jewelry donned all at once.
Note: both Chanel No. 22 and Parfums de Nicolai Sacrebleu Intense last . . . and last . . . and last, especially the Sacrebleu Intense. It’s six hours after application, and while both are present and accounted for, Sacrebleu Intense is still going strong.
OFF TOPIC:
But speaking of cellos, did you know there’s a whole underground movement of bowed guitar players? Neither did I. I’m always the last to know:
{ 7 comments }
Your views on vanilla pretty much mirror mine. Until very recently, I couldn’t stand the stuff at all. So often vanilla just takes everything over – when I first experienced them, the classic Guerlains just seemed like floral/citrus/spice/what-have-you variations on vanilla (and in a sense they are, I suppose). I’ve learned to tolerate vanilla, as long as it’s sufficiently integrated into the mix so as not to stand out – or obliterate everything else. Sounds like No. 22 achieves this.
Have you tried plain old Sacrebleu? I have me a small decant…perhaps we should swap a wee bit o’ each, and see what happens in a side-by-side-by-side. (No Sondheim, just Sacrebleu.)
I am totally hijacking that video, btw. Too many musician friends to amuse.
LP — right, I’ve gone through that vanilla-loathing to grudging respect arc. I’m not certain I’ll ever wind up jumping up and down and clapping my hands with glee over a new vanilla scent, or a predominant vanilla note, but I’ve at least toned down my hostility to the point where I can see it’s value in a mix.
No. 22 utilizes vanilla in a very precise, subtle way, and its interaction with the incense particularly nice.
Shelley — I haven’t yet tried the original Sacrebleu, though I did send a sample to my sister back in May of ’08 and she loved it. I’ll have to take you up on that swap. I only have what’s left in my sample vial of the Sacrebleu Intense, but I only sprayed twice on the back of my hand, so there’s plenty left.
Let’s coordinate our plans.
And I knew that video clip was going to find some happy viewers at this site . . .
I think I have a bottle of No. 22 Mom left behind. Perhaps I could sell it for Ormonde Jayne money…
Bowed guitar (electric) – see: Jimmy Page, Adrien Vanderberg.
Oh, most definitely — it the bottle is in good condition. If it’s an older bottle, it would be classified as “vintage” since the formulation is different from the one now on the market in the Les Exclusifs collection. You might be able to command some decent coin for it.
No. 22 in extrait is heavenly… not so crazy about the edt.
I’ve heard this same sentiment expressed from several different sources. Is the extrait even available any longer? Or are we stuck with just the EDT now, even though it’s an inferior formulation?