This is Ramonhjurado's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ramonhjurado's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ramonhjurado
Recent Activity
I don't think it's potent at all, it has the proper potency a parfum should have, several dabs is the same strength as the eau de toilette, but as I say I have to wear 20 dabs between my neck and wrists to get that effect, one dab certainly wouldn't be perceivable, maybe there's something wrong with me because people keep mentioning wearing just one dab but doubt anyone could perceive that.
1 reply
@Anne There is a picture online or used on a Chanel video from the inside of the store and you can tell they are buying the parfum actually.
1 reply
I really don't understand people that say that a pinky size dab of this clears a room, I have to wear 25 dabs to feel I have something on, of any perfume including Poison Esprit de Parfum, and it doesn't last for long.
1 reply
Chandler Burr is truly so gross, makes me cringe. But I was thinking about this today, I don't think there is a perfume that captures the smell of a man's clean skin after it has transpired, and in the privates. But now I want to smell that musk, do you know where one can buy it? I was going to buy the tinctures from profumo but got scared lol.
1 reply
Revisiting this review once again, and I don't think there is anything Art Deco about 19, it was done in the 70's after all. Much has been said about it, but no one ever mentions the woman that inspired this scent, Chanel herself. Now, the timeline is somewhat confusing, some people say No 19 is a reworked Mademoiselle Chanel No 31, which she supposedly used after dumping No 5 in her 40's or 50's, I don't think this is true, then the official story is that this is the last scent she worked on, but that doesn't add up considering it was released in 1971 and she died in January 10 of that year, so how can that be? Whether she actually worked on it or it was a posthumous tribute by the genius Henri Robert, I think it is a portrait of her, and it is what captures her best. Most people see the success, her fame, her tough exterior, but for all intent and purposes, Chanel was a woman who lost the love of her life tragically, was a loner, never married, didn't have children, spent her later years alone and died alone too, always being the outsider, never a suitable choice for the gentlemen she loved, hence why there was never a marriage, always existing in this demimonde even when she was the toast of the town. I think she was a very melancholic character, very sensitive and frail, having experienced so much loss but still resilient and hopeful for the future. This is what I always get from No 19, I get Chanel in her later years, and it is an incredibly moving and compassionate portrait, and so incredibly gorgeous. And sad too, but that's part of its incredible beauty, no other perfume can compare to be honest.
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2015 on Chanel No. 19 (1971) at Yesterday's Perfume
1 reply
AURUMGIRL is dead wrong. What other female pilots where they before Amelia Earhart?? And I think it is hilarious that she is talking about feminism and then takes away all accomplishments from Amelia Earhart for being a woman and credits the person she married. Sexist much? Literally none of what she mentions is true, and none of what she mentions can be viewed as feminist in any way shape or form. Rosie The Riveter did not go into work because she wanted a career, or even for herself, she did it for her man, and so did all the women in World War II. These women were working for their men and simply because there was no work force!!! The men were at war!! And none of them were in charge of corporations believe me, no man left those positions. And when the war ended all the Rosies duly returned to the kitchen, so how on earth is Rosie the Riveter a feminist icon?? Don't be ridiculous. Wild night outs?? Please, the only ones who had wild night outs in those times were women of ill repute, and the men were not buying Robert Piguet to those women I assure you. Women began smoking because the businessmen realized that they were missing out on 50% of the market by forbidden women to smoke in public. There was literally no rebellion or threats for any woman getting arrested and if it was a feminist stance, it was approved by the men before hand because they were getting profits, don't fool yourself honey. Even true feminist women like Gabrielle Chanel were decidedly unfeminist in the way they did things because they had to be. Even Chanel came from a time where women were seen as second class citizens and she never married because she wasn't a suitable woman for any respectable man, given the fact that she was a club singer and an arriviste in many ways. So please stop with your revisionist history which doesn't do service to anybody. Anytime history is distorted is to everyone's loss. And the writer of the article is right, Charlie was the first "feminist" fragrance, or the one first advertised as the fragrance of the liberated woman. Even if Chanel was liberated, even if Cellier were liberated, their work was not sold and promoted as feminist or emancipated fragrances, they were sold with images corresponding to the times and they didn't defy the mores and conventions, at least not in their promotion. Of course they defied with their scents, but not in a feminist way, but in a technical, artistic way. So you're wrong, and stop distorting facts.
Toggle Commented Sep 27, 2014 on Charlie by Revlon (1973) at Yesterday's Perfume
1 reply
A boardroom is the most boring, beige place in the world. Hardly the natural habitat of something as gorgeous and compelling as Chanel No 19.
Toggle Commented Dec 4, 2013 on Chanel No. 19 (1971) at Yesterday's Perfume
1 reply
Ramonhjurado is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 22, 2012