Comments on: 4160Tuesdays New York 1955 ~ fragrance review https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/ a blog about perfume Sat, 06 Aug 2016 01:32:01 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Jessica https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533641 Sat, 06 Aug 2016 01:32:01 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533641 In reply to mals86.

I hated Love, Chloe too. I’m very fond of Broadway Nite!

]]>
By: mals86 https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533594 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:50:44 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533594 In reply to nozknoz.

I remember Chantilly from back in the day, and you’re right, it is very un-fluffy. 🙂

]]>
By: mals86 https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533591 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:48:35 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533591 In reply to Kris.

Of course.

]]>
By: mals86 https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533588 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:47:37 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533588 In reply to Lindaloo.

Just went and checked Coty’s website (here: https://www.coty.com/brands#block-quicktabs-brands ) and they don’t list either Dana or Houbigant.

]]>
By: nozknoz https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533555 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:44:49 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533555 In reply to nozknoz.

I managed to find my vintage Chantilly today!

I guess it does suggest the idea of the Chantilly dessert up top if you find real sandalwood creamy and notice a hint of maraschino cherry. But it’s a heavy perfume by today’s standards, with the soapy-powdery aldehydes in addition to that real sandalwood, and not sweet or fruity. Think Chanel No. 5 rather than Misia.

]]>
By: Lindaloo https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533433 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 05:23:21 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533433 In reply to mals86.

Is it owned by Coty now, as so much else is?

]]>
By: Lindaloo https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533432 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 05:20:58 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533432 In reply to Jessica.

Ah yes, memories of writing all night for an assignments due at 9 a.m Deadlines motivate me, but only when I’m at the brink 😀

]]>
By: nozknoz https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533422 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:41:45 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533422 I think Mals is right: Fragrantica lists Chantilly under both Houbigant and Dana as a 1941 perfume, not under Coty. It’s indeed puzzling.

I have a small vintage bottle somewhere, but it must be hiding behind something else at the moment. I don’t remember it smelling anything like the name Chantilly or the 4160 Tuesdays description (any more than Blue Grass smells like grass).

Here are the notes from Fragrantica:

“Top notes are fruity notes, neroli, bergamot and lemon; middle notes are spices, carnation, jasmine, ylang-ylang, rose and orange blossom; base notes are leather, tonka bean, musk, benzoin, oakmoss, vanilla and sandalwood.”

I don’t think it was light and fluffy, despite the name. But perhaps it seemed so compared with Tabu. 😉

]]>
By: Robert H. https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533421 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:31:22 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533421 In reply to Jessica.

Hate when that happens! And sadly it happens all to often! LOL!

]]>
By: Jessica https://nstperfume.com/2016/08/04/4170tuesdays-new-york-1955-fragrance-review/#comment-533418 Thu, 04 Aug 2016 23:57:27 +0000 https://nstperfume.com/?p=144369#comment-533418 In reply to nathanthomas50.

#truth

]]>