Burberry for Men (Version #2)
Burberry (1992)

*This review is of the vintage 1992 version.

Burberrys for Men opens with fine bergamot citrus and aromatic lavender with hints of supporting mint and tarragon spice before transitioning to its heart. As the composition enters its early heart remnants of the aromatic lavender remain, now in support of an unveiled natural cedar wood note that takes the fore, with slightly sharp woody vetiver, earthy patchouli, dulled carnation and rose florals and mint-like warm marjoram spice in additional support. During the late dry-down the warm spice and aromatic woods remain, now joining moderately hard leather and slightly animalic musk from the base through the finish. Projection is slightly below average, but longevity is excellent at between 13 and 15 hours on skin.

It took me a bit of time to completely warm to the 1992 version of Burberrys for Men. Oh, I always at least "liked" it, but something about the warm spice and aromatics just didn't quite click at first. That said, the more I wear the composition the more I find myself appreciating its seemingly endless list of ingredients that near-miraculously come together to smell quite good on the whole. The composition really isn't overly innovative, but the minty marjoram spice adds a special dimension to the aromatics in particular that set Burberrys apart from its long list of competitors from the early 1990s. If I had one wish, it would be to have the projection enhanced a bit, but that is a small "flaw" that I find easy to overlook when taking a macro view of the perfume results. The bottom line is the discontinued $150 per 50 ml bottle on the aftermarket Burberrys for Men (1992) is not the last word of what the best of 1990's perfumery has to offer, but the "very good" to "excellent" 3.5 to 4 stars out of 5 perfume is a winner that gradually makes its case for recommending a sample or even a full bottle buy.

I loved it while it was available. It was actually called "Burberrys." I wish they would bring this one back in its original concentration, as well as the original Burberrys for Men (the first original with the gold liquid and offset cap on top). Why do they always seem to discontinue their BEST fragrances???

Confusing list here on Basenotes. The BFM dated 1995 should rightly have in parentheses (Version #3), as there is an original from 1981 and this version #2, from 1992, which I am reviewing.

I assume that Turin's two star review ("herbaceous chemical") referred to the original 1981 release, but there is no way to know which of the three he was reviewing.

#2 is a lavender fougere, bright and bracing, with a skanky note (others have referred to possible civet). Lots of notes have been suggested in these reviews in addition to these two notes: amber, juniper, pepper, pine, amber, mint, artemesia, galbanum, carnation, etc. Quite possible - this melange. However, for my nose the lavender and civet are most prominent.

This is a typical men's scent from the powerhouse era (1980-1995), and I can see it as a popular choice for an after shave purchased for pennies from one's local drug store. It is not to my nose extraordinary in any way, just a decent scent for men. The brightness quickly fades, leaving a sharp, somewhat unpleasant dry down. Not entierely bad, but definitely not for me.

High-end perfumery, that's for sure: Extremely beautiful, lively, skillfully blended and with a lot of surprise and development while remaining perfectly comfortable: The 'Blue Knight' builds up on a prominent lavender/tonka/moss/musk quartet as a fougère in the classical manner. There's only just a hint of a cool bitter bergamot in the blend. A dose of a slightly fecal material (civet?) which is subdued by a nice dark-ambery vanilla base adds a certain Jicky'ness. Prominent mint and possibly galbanum give an overall green aura to the lavender top. Some heliotropin- or carnation-like notes bring in a floral powdery aspect and a lively spicyness. Despite a somewhat black peppery sandalwood note in the mid and later stages this one isn't really woody. I think I can smell Musk Ketone (- maybe the perfumers among us can verify -) in a significant amount, Burberry is quite musky. I'd classify it as a dark-green fougère-oriental. It has decent projection, a stunning longevity. Pure superb perfume enjoyment in one of the most wonderful hefty glass bottles. A shame that this is a dying genre and a thing of the past.
(As an alternative I'd take Eau Sauvage Parfum - though it's really not the same.)

I thought I was sampling the 1981 version, but apparently it was Version #2 from 1992. I am a fan. I think it has some moss that adds a dimension to make it develop into something even better than the initial half hour, and I think I smell amber in the base making it sweet.

A great fragrance. The best from this house (well almost as I have not tried the first one yet). As Shifty Bat puts it - a cocktail of best of the best masculines. The mint is sublime and brings it all together. Get it while you can. A steal at current prices.

Edit: Now that I have tried their #1 I can say that this is the best from this house.