No. 19
Eau de Toilette, Chanel (1971)

Next to Chanel No. 5, the iconic No. 19 is perhaps the greatest and most characteristic fragrance in the Chanel lineup. The galbanum and other herbal aspects, providing a natural reference, are perfectly balanced against sharper, brighter florals and a classic chypre note, which combine to seem ethereal and unnatural. The result is a fragrance which many characterize as cold and aloof, but which others recognize as welcoming and alive, and in reality, it's both. The result is fantastic - a timeless fragrance, with both sophistication and verve - a perfect emblem for the Chanel woman. Men often get away with wearing it, perhaps because the brash and happy freshness is equally compelling on a well-dressed man. This fragrance never seems to go out of style. The EDT is my favorite concentration, hands down. A fragrance that my wife wore when I met her, I remain smitten with both.

***

O green winds of time
Remind me of sacred life
Always meant to be.

Much lighter and not as floral as the parfum. Makes sense, as the paper insert in the box states that the edt is "for women who wear No.19 all over the body." Smells a lot like Chanel Pour Monsieur, while the parfum is definitely more feminine. No.19 is very pretty but the performance seems rather dismal and more like an eau de cologne than an eau de toilette. And this is the vintage, not a newer bottle. I'll have to eventually get my hands on an old bottle of Cristalle. I remember really enjoying that one.

Legend has it that Chanel No. 19 (1971) was made by the famed perfumer Henri Robert for Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel's birthday. Originally this was a bespoke fragrance for her to use and give away to her friends and personal clients in 1970, then released to the public upon her death just a year later in 1971. Robert succeeded Earnest Beaux as lead perfumer for Gabrielle from 1952 until her death, then as Master Perfumer of Les Parfums Chanel until 1978, when Jacques Polge took over and reshaped everything we now know about Chanel perfumes. Like Robert's creation for Chanel's debut into masculine territory, this fragrance doesn't perfectly adhere to it's gender assignment. Make no mistake, the bulk and majority of Chanel Pour Monsieur (1955) users are men as intended, and so too are most people spraying on No. 19 women, but the fact remains that the lines here are soft and fuzzy enough for folks from the opposite side of the fence to ignore them. There really isn't much here separating this from Penhaligon's Hammam Bouquet (1872) outside the galbanum, and the same for Aramis 900 (1973), which also relies heavily on green balsamic woody notes combined with a floral heart. Arguably this is more masculine than Robert's Le Dandy (1926), created for perfume house D'Orsay and also used by both sexes despite being pitched to men. Regardless of subjective opinions, No. 19 is universally appealing enough to even create such debate, like Guerlain's own Jicky (1889) from almost a century before.

The point is, this is objectively beautiful from any angle. It's green galbanum-powered opening rolls in with neroli, iris, bergamot, and hyacinthe to just "pop" right in place, with the rose sneaking up like an expected old friend coming around without calling first like they always do. The base of leather, oakmoss, cedar, sandalwood, and musk are strait out of textbook masculine perfumery, and if not for the very flighty heart, would pull this in line with stuff like Monsieur Givenchy (1959). It's really the jasmine, orris, lily of the valley, narcissus, ylang ylang and rose in the heart that tug this into the feminine camp by standards of the era, because separately they're found all over; ans all together they form a traditionally feminine floral bouquet in the heart of what is otherwise a green aromatic chypre that could go either way. Certainly, any guy daring to wear this is of the classic dandy persuasion, or just very free and liberal-minded, whichever it may be; but assuming green floral aromatics are of one's taste, this would be fantastic on just about anyone. No. 19 isn't without its failings however, as its very light and dry nature at a time when aldehydes ruled the earth is comparatively weak next to its older sister No. 5 (1921), and this affects it's performance. Nowadays, this dry and green femme fatale seems rather dated, just like Lauder's Alliage Sport Spray (1972) in the modern era of super sweet, super ozonic, high-pitch and low-complexity women's perfume. No. 19 was even briefly retired to be replaced by the re-orchestrated No. 19 Poudré (2011) by Polge before an outcry of fans convinced Chanel to bring it back. Ironically, now the Poudré is discontinued while the original endures.

Before anybody gets too excited I must make a few disclaimers: this entire review is based off vintage column-bottle examples of No 19. Various formats outside the revised "Poudré" have existed, and some say the retired Eau de Cologne and original Eau de Parfum smelled entirely different from this version, which is not unlike Chanel to do. Modern EdT is supposed to more or less be the same, while modern parfum is much more vividly floral, which may appeal more to women seeking not to have the rather tomboyish green flair of the EdT, or just in general wanting something with less of the "dated" chypre dryness (which I love). Regardless of what version one gets, there is nothing terribly abstract about this; and the gentle meadowy lucid texture leading into the aromatic naturalist base will either be one's salvation from modern "luxury blobs", or make one run screaming back to it for safety. My two scents here is everything made for or by Coco is of a timeless style that exists outside of the necessity for relevance, and the legions of fans from all genders that worship both this and Chanel No. 5 don't stop to think who this is meant for, they just see it for the art that it is. How functional that art is depends on the beholder: for some it may be a quaint piece of vintage perfumery to be respected but not worn, and for others it is a mental day trip to the fields of southern France every time they spray it on. For Chanel herself, it was something other than No. 5 to wear in the twilight of her life. Thumbs up

To have a bottle of No 19 EDT from the late 80s-early 90s like I have is nothing short of a blessing.

It's not that I want to perpetuate the myth that vintage is always superior, which can be dispelled time and again depending on where you look (and what you smell), but with all the talk of more recent formulations of the EDT being a bit "thin" I figured I'd patiently await the discovery of an older bottle at a price that was not astronomical, and here we are today.

This is magnificent. Yes, cold, aloof, steely, but to limit it to such adjectives is to sell it short, as it also has an astonishing vibrance and life to it, from the bitter, astringent opening galbanum blast to the waltz between hyacinth and iris as it warms on my skin. Fresh, crisp, yet with a powdery and somewhat melancholy slant, showcasing the magic of orris root itself. In its heart, No. 19 is just as much a deep purple as it is a saturated green, but each tone lightens in shade further into its development, into wistful pastels.

Further into its dry down, my nose experiences how oakmoss and orris blend together in woods shrouded in a musk mist. It feels truly spellbinding on this rainy late March day.

Designed for women, but probably more unisex than many current unisex frags, and for sure the most unisex of the 4 versions of No.19 . Green iris, galbanum and white florals with a hint of leather, vetiver and rose in the drydown. A masterpiece, but is it necessary to repeat it?

The vintage opens a bit more aldehydic, with a noticeable floral leather note and incens-y undertones, overall giving me an impression of 'green olives'. The current will show its leathery tones in the base, and its a better defined/less blurry leather note. In a nutshell, the vintage smells a bit more 'dirty', while current smells very clean. I'd say that the vintage is green/brown in colour, while current is green/grey.
The vintage results being a tiny bit more feminine compared to the perfectly unisex current juice. Still, both are easy to wear for confident men.
I just wish, in both cases, that the performance would be a bit improved.