Ozonics were also reaching a headache-inducing crescendo so this wasn't even close to the loudest thing on the planet at the turn of the millennium, but compared to the previous decade's glut of fresh this and aquatic that, a violet note in a masculine felt almost like a relapse into the wild 1980's. The violet note on display in Burberry Touch for Men sits somewhere between the dryness of Geoffrey Beene Grey Flannel (1975), and the voluptuousness of Dior Fahrenheit (1988), sans the gasoline "barrel note" that makes the Dior feel scandalous. Compared to Weekend for Men or even the previous (second reboot and third overall) eponymous masculine Burberry for Men (1995), Burberry Touch for Men has a bit more individuality, feeling less like an inclusion on a common trope like those other two, and more like something signature to the house itself, if you ignore the close comparison to the aforementioned Moschino scent.īurberry Touch for Men has the same sweet citrus opening of Uomo? Moschino, but swaps out that nice iced lemon cake hedione vibe of the Moschino for a richer mandarin opening, but the real star of the show is violet. Burberry wasn't the first to this theme, and the underrated house of Moschino arguably did it better with Uomo? Moschimo (1997), which didn't utilize a violet note as the dominant accord like Burberry has on display here, but the Burberry name attached to this juice ultimately made their take on the style more popular. Part of this trend continued into the mid-2000's, which is where we get several overbearingly sweet gourmands for men, and the exceptionally good iris-heavy classic Dior Homme (2005), but for Burberry's part of the trend, we get what is basically a light men's ambery musk. It was time for a change, and although not everyone was on the same page for what that change should be come the year 2000, Burberry thought it should be more in line with the new vibe straight men were borrowing from portions of the gay community with their "metrosexual" style: an urbane and bookish vibe with a touch of feminine flair that made it safe to play with things like perfume notes perceived as "for girls". I really think if Burberry repackaged it and put some marketing behind it Touch would find a whole new - and mass - audience.īurberry Touch for Men (2000) must have seemed downright mellifluous to the nose after the rather plain-spoken pure 90's freshness that was Burberry Weekend for Men (1997), which along with Ted Baker Skinwear (1998) and Penhaligon's Quercus (1996), more or less encapsulated the popular lemon-powered "sons of Blenheim" neo-barbershop style British masculines were going through in the latter half of the decade.
It probably will always be in the moment. But Touch smells nothing like most colognes from that time period (with the exception of The Dreamer). And relegates it to the discounters and rack stores (not a bad thing for the person looking fir cheapie gold). That clean, minimalist and modern look so ubiquitous in the 90’s and early 2000’s kind of (unfairly) traps Touch in that timeframe. The look and vibe of the bottle is cool too but dated. It’s a smooth, refined 4 season scent, with good sillage and decent duration. I have really come to love and respect Touch. Akin to The Dreamer in this way, as well as in the sweetness (tobacco leaf?).
These are all riffs on Touch IMO.Įdit 8/4/22: A big difference to the above is that Touch is very powdery, while the aforementioned are not. I’m thinking about the clean, sweet, spicy, woody, fragrances so prevalent today.
0 kommentar(er)
