Une Histoire de Chypre
Aedes de Venustas (2007)

I concur with foetidus. As a chypre girl I was entranced by the green/citrus opening on a woody base, with not a trace of powder, and thought, This is promising! But within a half hour everything just began to fade away, leaving only a trace of moss. I reapplied hopefully from my sample vial, and got the same result. On paper -- and on first impression -- this seems like a chypre lover's dream. But something is missing in the chemistry of the composition; it just doesn't hold together. How disappointing.

I read the above reviews and it shows how skin and chemistry mean EVERYTHING. This is one . Opens with a burst of honey fruit notes , giving way to osmanthus and a brilliant iris nuance. very nice on my skin.

After trying this several times, my impression remains a disappointed "meh." It's not just that the fragrance is lightweight and sits close, but parts of it feel missing on me. The bergamot and florals I noticed in the beginning quickly become thin, the patchouli is nice and interesting but also weak, and the whole thing is sadly unimpressive.

Oh yes, this is chypre. It opens green with a tiny support by the citrus. I think I'm getting a solid dose of galbanum, but it's a slightly different galbanum than I am used to. There's a touch of indole in there, too, so the jasmine is doing its proper thing. From the base I'm picking up the patchouli. The opening citrus is mild and it quickly gets even milder until it disappears... but the green holds on to its strength. In the middle, the fragrance seems to fall apart: There's not many things happening. I get almost nothing of the florals that are supposed to be in the heart, I've gone through two sample tubes and I have never been able to smell the roses – or the Osmanthus or the iris. I am totally unimpressed by the base… I get not sweetness of musk or amber nor do I smell the patchouli. All I get is moss, and that is not enough to qualify as a base as far as I'm concerned. Aedes de Venustas' Histoire de Chypre has poor projection and longevity. (Edit of 20 December 2008 review. Changed from a neutral to a thumbs down.)