The Shocking Secrets Of Granny’s Boudoir
June 12th, 2007
By Tove Solander
I’m cheating today (I’m afraid I’m running out of ideas for proper smellalikes…) and reviewing two versions of the same perfume. Thanks to the generosity of a fellow swapper, I got to try Schiaparelli Shocking in both vintage and contemporary formulations. I have found the following notes for either or both: bergamot, aldehydes, tarragon, honey, rose, narcissus, clove, civet, chypre.
Vintage: The vintage formulation starts out with the sort of flat and plasticky feel the top notes (especially citrus top notes) often acquire as a scent ages. Then it morphs into the bitter powderiness of oakmoss, tons of it. There may be a whiff of old-fashioned, perhaps even dried, roses in between but not a lot. Vintage Shocking is dry, warm and slightly musty like vintage scents often are. The chypre accord gives it a foresty feeling of wood, tree bark, pine needles and pine cones but the face powder version of forest, mind you. I might get a hint of spice, and a hint of the soapy sharpness of aldehydes but that’s about it. There’s nothing shocking as in, well, civet, here, which I find a tad disappointing.
New: The reformulation is even less shocking. It’s roses like your granny wore them: powdery, soapy, sharp and sweetened with honey. Now I don’t like rose scents, hardly even in nature (they tend to smell potpourri-like straight from the rose bush) so of course I’m biased but I don’t think this is a very good rose scent. I think you have to be an avid fan or roses to really appreciate it, someone who can’t get enough of the note. What it has in common with the vintage version is the amount of classic powder, with some soapy aldehydes on top. But while the vintage version is all oakmoss powder, this is all rose powder, and I don’t think I have to tell you which powder I prefer.
Image source: parfumdepub.net
Entry Filed under: Guest Blogger, Perfume Reviews, Vintage Closet
12 Comments Add your own
1. dinazad | June 13th, 2007 at 2:15 am
*LOL* - Tove, my dear, Shocking is obviously not your cup of tea! Me, I love them both - they make me feel like Mae West. All dry, sarcastic wit with the vintage, all over-the-top opulence (I like opulence) with the new. Roses and honey, yes, but not as in roses from the garden, but as in the rose syrup I make every year, with the same light citrussy overtones (that’s the citric acid in the syrup). And, curiously enough, on my skin the whole is grounded by an incense note, I get no powder at all. So get me that mink stole, Rolls with driver, and, of course, Cary Grant as my date!
But I do admit I did not like Shocking at all, when I first smelled it in the early nineties. I thought it was revolting. Tastes change!
2. newproducts | June 13th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Your review of Shocking actually makes it seem appealing to me. I do like roses, and I *love* powder and aldehydes, so I think I may like the new version.
3. Elle | June 13th, 2007 at 6:43 am
I didn’t even know there was a new version. Must look for it! I have the vintage in parfum and have to admit I adore it. Skank, oakmoss, honey and roses - for me, perfection.
I hope they make the new version in parfum as well.
4. Dmitri aka Flacon007 | June 13th, 2007 at 7:01 am
I just couldn’t refrain from a comment to this fragrance.
Sniffing at only one vintage version of Shocking won’t give you an vision of what it was. There were many editions of the scent and all of them survived the time in a different way, I ‘m afraid. So it would be better to try and sniff at as many vintage samples as possible.
For me Shocking is a tuberose scent in the first line, a source of inspiration for Poison Dior.
5. Marina | June 13th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Tove, I found nothing shocking in Shocking either
I did like the scent, but I wanted more oomph out of it.
6. Solander | June 13th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Dina - Well, apart from the topnotes, which have not quite stood the test of time, I like the vintage version. I only wish it was more “shocking”… Your description sounds lovely! I wish I got opulence from the reformulation, I like opulent rose scents, but not sharp and soapy ones…
Tastes change indeed - mine has already changed more than I’d ever think the short time I’ve been a perfume nerd - so I’ll save the vintage version for later. By the way, after a few hours I got some oakmoss from the reformulation too. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to try them!
newproducts - Well, if you like roses, powder and aldehydes you might very well like it!
Me, I don’t mind powder but I’ve not yet learned to appreciate aldehydes, and I only like a few selected rose scents.
Elle - ooh, skank, wish I got that!
Dmitri - tuberose? That’s interesting! I thought it was purely a rose scent.
Marina - More oomph, exactly! More oomph and more skank.
7. dinazad | June 13th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Well, maybe we just aren’t as shockable as Schiaparelli’s contemporaries were?
8. Solander | June 13th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Oh, I wouldn’t say that! Schiaparelli’s contemporaries had civet and chypres! Now in the days of fruity florals and sugar, when everything, even the musk, is supposed to smell “clean”, I think we’re more shockable perfume-wise. Well, maybe not us perfume nerds and skankaholics…
9. tmp00 | June 13th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
hmmm.. sounds a little disappointing, at least to me.
10. Ina | June 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Very interesting! Since I do love the rose, I’m more curious to try this now, in both (or all possible) versions. New lemming alert!
11. chayaruchama | June 14th, 2007 at 7:04 am
God, it’s been YEARS since I snorted this- and I’ve not ’shelled out’ to smell the newer one.
However, if my sexy soulsister Fraulein Dinazad remembers it fondly, then it’s likely that I do, too. I’ll have to check this out. For science, of COURSE.
Bring on the skank, baby !
12. Solander | June 15th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Tom - Ah well, tastes differ…
Ina - If you love rose, it’s probably worth a try!
Chayaruchama - Always for science.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed