Diamonds are a girl’s best friend, Chanel 1932

In February Chanel released new perfume in Les Exclusifs de Chanel collection simply called 1932. The date is not coincidental. In 1932 Chanel presented its first fine jewellery collection and this new exclusive fragrance was created to commemorate those past times. Perfumer behind 1932 is Chanel in-house perfumer Jacques Polge and the perfume itself is made in eau de toilettle concentration.

Before I became happy-go-lucky when I was offered a sample of 1932 I was pretty excited about this new release from Chanel. I tried to imagine what would it smell like. It’s not easy to come up with an idea about the scent. Would it be graceful like diamonds, shining with its many facets like a gem in the crown. Now I don’t have to use my imagination because a sample of 1932 is finally here!

The opening of 1932 is created of aldehydes. They’re really fizzy and sparkling – like some little diamonds shining and twinkling in the light. Very shortly coumarin reveals its presence. Along with opoponax which comes next they introduce a balmy feeling that starts less than 5 minutes from applying. These two notes also carry a hidden woody feeling. All is harmonious and peaceful so far.

Then, after another 20 minutes Chanel 1932 turns musky. Musk is clean, soapy, kind of bubbly. Like a huge smelly foam in the bathtub. The Scented Hound described this new Chanel using a word “bathtastic” – yes, there’s something right in this newly created word. Another note that comes after musk is an orris root. It introduces slightly rooty, more powdery vibe to 1932. It is pleasant – just like most of the powdery irises are pleasant to my nose. In the drydown Chanel turns sweeter with some neroli, rose and jasmine. At some moments it smelled too candy-like to me.

Full notes pyramid of Chanel 1932 lists aldehydes, bergamot and neroli in the top, jasmine, rose, ylang-ylang, carnation and lilac as middle notes and vetiver, orris root, opoponax, sandalwood, incense, musk, ambrette, vanilla and coumarin as base notes.

When Angela reviewed Chanel 1932 at Now Smell This someone left a comment saying that it smells like a combination of 31 Rue Cambon and 28 La Pausa. Once you think about it smelling 1932 you really start to notice elements of both Les Exclusifs in it. 1932 is very safe perfume that has inoffensive character. At the same time it’s nothing very innovative in it. It smells great but it brings nothing new to perfume industry. Some say it makes one great office scent. Agreed! I enjoyed sampling 1932 but I definitely don’t need it. I’m passing on that Chanel. Chanel 1932 belongs to Les Exclusifs collection, available in 75 and 200 ml bottles. Have you tried it? Are you planning to give it a try?

Tagged , ,

22 thoughts on “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend, Chanel 1932

  1. Jordan River says:

    It’s not a rough cut, it’s not a Princess cut or a Marquise or even a bright Briolette. I think cushion cut for 1932.

  2. Kafkaesque says:

    Ha! You noted the role of coumarin too. I haven’t read a lot of other reviews that have. I love Mr. Hound’s “bathtastic” description of it but, thankfully, it wasn’t quite as soapy on me as it was on him. If it had been, I think my review would have been much, much harsher. As it is, I thought 1932 was boring as hell. If someone *gave* it to me, I wouldn’t wear it. I wouldn’t give it away as a present either, because no-one I’m close to who would want to wear the liquid version of anemia. *sniff*

    • lucasai says:

      Yup, I noticed the coumarin, it was quite straightforward. I guess it was easier to notice after testing Perris Monte Carlo which all have promonent coumarin.
      “Bathtastic” is a great word, isn’t it? On me it was slightly soapy but I know many soapier scents.
      Boring? For me it is but just a little bit, it’s not a new voice of perfumery.

  3. Dear Lucas

    You sound another note of disappointment in what is becoming a chorus of defeated expectations.

    I will still try this as I love an aldehyde, the iris note is precious to me and a soapy musk far from offensive.

    But I do have worries about the ‘candy like quality’ you describe.

    The Dandy’s definitely not for candy.

    Yours ever
    The Perfumed Dandy

    • lucasai says:

      Many people seem to say they liked 1932 but not loved it and that it didn’t live up to their expectations.
      Do give it a try, aldehydes are nice (but I have a better aldehyde to talk about soon). Iris is subtle here. And I like soapy musk too πŸ™‚
      Let us know what you think

  4. Tatiana says:

    Tried it. Liked it, not loved it. It did remind me of 31 Rue Cambon combined with 28 La Pausa, a bit. I could overlook it’s faults if it only lasted longer than 30 minutes on my skin. I’ll stick with the Exclusifs I already own, Cuir de Russie, Bois des Iles and 31 Rue Cambon.

    • lucasai says:

      Same here Tatiana, 1932 is a no love for me. 31 Rue Cambon ir 28 La Pausa are so much better and distinctive.
      Sure, stick with what you have, you’ve got some great Chanels right there!

  5. Kevin says:

    This one was just so uninspiring, and while I do think it’s very “Chanel” I’m not sure it’s worthy of being an Exclusif, and really belongs in their normal department store lineup. Thankfully, I didn’t get much soapiness from this, but it was quite unremarkable and unmemorable, which I think in many ways is worse than being just plain bad!

    • lucasai says:

      agree with you Kevin, 1932 lacks a good concept idea. Yes, it suits Chanel easthetics but it certaincly could’ve been launched as non-exclusive. Still I think this will make quite a bestseller for next couple of months

  6. hajusuuri says:

    I’ve only sniffed this on a tester strip and it was OK, “not bad” but nothing special either. If I happen to be at a Chanel boutique (either the one at Saks or the 57th St. store), I will TRY to get a sample to take home.

  7. Undina says:

    Well… I just tried it (3 hours and counting – I can still kind of smell its presence). What can I say? Let’s put it this way: if you were to put on a girl some diamonds from that 1932 collection it wouldn’t matter if she wore 1932 perfume. Otherwise I agree with Kafka: it’s boring. Not bad. Just not good enough. It’s a pity though I expected exactly that (but hoped for better). As I stated earlier, well…

  8. Natalie says:

    The more I read about this, the less inclined I am to be interested in it. It sounds like exactly what I expected from the Les Exclusifs collection, and that’s not a good thing. On the other hand, I can understand how Chanel might think they are in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, considering how much Jersey was hated (and it was a departure from their Exclusif formula). But on the third hand (ha ha) we really are not asking for much, right? Just something exceptional … and interesting!

    • lucasai says:

      The opinins are divided but more and more people say it’s OK but they can live without it while we want Chanel to make something we can’t live without, right?

  9. Your thoughts echoed mine (and the others above). It’s well done, but also unremarkable compared to some of the others in the line (Coromandel, No. 22, Cuir de Russie).

  10. Judy Jackson says:

    I’ve tried this too!!! I super Love it!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: