Touch for Women
Burberry (2000)

I don't love it. Don't think it's for me. The topnotes were interesting and at first I got spicy, green, and floral impressions which reminded me a little of Ralph Lauren Blue, but that quickly faded into a softer, creamier, almost powdery scent which reminds me of baby powder and not in a good way. Has that sort of warm milk-ish note that I get in Allure Sensuelle by Chanel in the drydown which is another fragrance that I found off putting for the same reason. Do not find it a clean scent at all. Smells like it's trying to be sensual but rather than sexy it smells like an actual baby's butt with a touch of warm milk and soggy fruity pebbles. I gave it a neutral because it is not completely unpleasant, and I might like it ok on someone else, but it is definitely not a go to for me. Tolerable at best.

The opening is a friendly and quite bright mix of berries and fruits. This description is kept vague as these are rather nonspecific notes, which find it hard to express individual characteristics convincingly.

The drydown comes down on the floral side in a more decisive manner, mainly due to a soft lily with jasmin at the centre, with whiffs of a gentle spiciness underneath.

The final stages add a nonspecific woodsy impression on the base of a pleasant vanilla.

I get moderate sillage, adequate projection and eighty hours of longevity on my skin.

This pleasant and bright spring scent is an agreeable product, whose mostly rather generic nature prevents it from rising above a certain mediocrity. 2.75/5.

I love Touch for Women by Burberry. To me it smells like early fall in Paris right after a light rain. It's definitely original and I love it for the images it conjures of an afternoon in Paris after a light rain, or anywhere else for that matter after a light rain. I love it and just ordered four bottles!

A sheer fragrance made 'fresh' by a foundation of hairspray. It seems very formulaic, unmemorable, not really Touch-able, because of the somewhat radiant synthetics that belong in, at most, an upscale department store. It starts with a sheer generic wash of vague fruits, citrus; a so-called floral freshness that one must train one's nose at many a department store counter to consider fresh, but in reality is a synthetic radiant harshness. It quickly fades to a vaguer, lighter smell, a skin scent, which is said to be sheer notes of cedar, oakmoss and tonka, but comes across more like a low grade white musk, which always has harsh aspects on my skin in spite of the divine sound of it.
I suppose every perfume house has to have a transparent fresh fragrance and this is theirs. It just seems so generic, so calculated to fill a slot with no reason for existence other than that. If this had been the first of this type I had smelled instead of the fortieth, I might not have dismissed it so readily. But even then I would have thought to myself "A little too hairsprayish. Not much personality, but would fit in anywhere, so it's very safe". I have to say the ingredient list looks wonderful, but is the best part of the fragrance.
Many have commented on its fruitiness - I think when I start picking up hairspray notes like I did on Touch, it effectively obliterates fruity notes, and many other top notes. I've noticed that on other hairsprayish fragrances I've tried.

I just purchased this without testing it. I have actually purchased many things without testing them and have had excellent luck. This was not one of those times. I have never returned a fragrance because I just don't like it at all. It's kind of expensive for air freshener which for me would be its only use. While I like many of the notes, I really do not like this scent at all and am returning it.

oakwood cedarwood and vanilla..in a nut shell. clean smell, reminds me of rain or wet wood in the forest. it could be a masculine scent ,not the usuall feminine scent for girly girls...i would caracterise it unisex and suitable to wear by sportive girls/women.