I was recommended Dior Eau Sauvage, but particularly the EdT and not the parfum. I grabbed a couple samples, but it ended being the parfum. Regardless, I enjoy it and I'm considering a full bottle purchase. But what I wanted to know is: how different are they? I have a feeling I'm just going to have to get a sample of the EdT as well, and try both to compare before I decide. I'd still like to hear opinions from those who have tried both.
Eau Sauvage - Parfum vs. EdT
- Thread starter PGHChris
- Start date
They are miles different, both in terms of smell and performance. The EDP is a beast that lasts on me 10+ hours and it's a darker fragrance heavy on the myrrh. The EDT is a bright lemon/bergamot fragrance. Some people think it's an old man citrus scent. Women don't like the EDT in my experience and think it smells dated. The biggest problem for me is performance. I get about 2 hours out of the EDT and that's it. For the price, that's just not good enough. If you can only buy one of these bottles, I would easily go for the EDP. If the EDT performed better, I would give it higher marks.
Nailed it! I could not have said it better
The perfume smells pleasant, but is quite simple and linear.
Original Eau Sauvage, which you refer to as the EdT, is an absolute classic. I disagree with lt114 in his assertion that it smells dated. It was genius with how Edmond Roudnitska essentially took the classical eau de cologne recipe, added hedione and oakmoss and blended it to perfection to create one of the most important and successful masculines of all time. The most recent formulation is effectively oakmoss free so any associations some people have with "old man" is no longer there. I'm 29 and wear it. My girlfriend is 27 and she sneaks it once in a while.
Comparing eau savage to its perfume flanker is like comparing Mozart to a folk ballad.
Original Eau Sauvage, which you refer to as the EdT, is an absolute classic. I disagree with lt114 in his assertion that it smells dated. It was genius with how Edmond Roudnitska essentially took the classical eau de cologne recipe, added hedione and oakmoss and blended it to perfection to create one of the most important and successful masculines of all time. The most recent formulation is effectively oakmoss free so any associations some people have with "old man" is no longer there. I'm 29 and wear it. My girlfriend is 27 and she sneaks it once in a while.
Comparing eau savage to its perfume flanker is like comparing Mozart to a folk ballad.
- Thread starter
- #5
I've decided that I enjoy the parfum, but I'm not sure I enjoy it enough for a full bottle purchase. There are other citrusy fragrances I prefer (AdP for one). I should have a sample of the EdT on the way shortly, and I look forward to comparing the two. I keep hearing that the parfum and the EdT are so vastly different that they shouldn't even share the name "Eau Sauvage". If that is the case, I wonder why they do...
You heard right. The parfum has a little bergamot at the beginning, but it dies down to mostly Myrhh and a little vetiver in the background.
Pleasant enough though.
I tried both and found the EdP wanting significantly. It's a linear fragrance to me, with little development over time, and quite sweet and feminine.
The EdT is simply a timeless classic that's utterly sophisticated. And its longevity is fine on me. I managed to pick up 100ml for $54 last week. Since EdP is a newer product, you're unlikely to get it for anywhere near that price.
All in all, no competition. but each to his own of course.
The EdT is simply a timeless classic that's utterly sophisticated. And its longevity is fine on me. I managed to pick up 100ml for $54 last week. Since EdP is a newer product, you're unlikely to get it for anywhere near that price.
All in all, no competition. but each to his own of course.
- Thread starter
- #8
After trying both, albeit not side by side, I think that they're very similar. I think the parfum might be a little richer (or something), but I don't think they're dissimilar enough to warrant having both. I'm really not sure which one I prefer, but I certainly like them enough to get a full bottle. I guess I'll have to try them side by side a few times to figure it out. To be continued...
Are you sure you compared the original with the EdP? They are as different as a fragrance can be...I mean really.
Just to clarify, I didn't say that I think it smells dated. I said that women think it smells dated and they don't like it. I'm willing to bet if you ask 10 women under 40 what they think about the EDT, you'll get similar responses. My biggest criticism about the most recent reformulation is the performance, which is just abysmal for me. Otherwise I have no problems with it.
That, sir, is the definition of an illicit generalization. Moreover, my experience (with women in their 20s) contradicts yours. I will concede that the original formulation does have a more mature feel, but what is the reference? The million department store aquatic or synthetic woody ambers? No thanks.
Oak moss was the fixative in the original. The reason the new formulation gets less longevity is because this component is now gone. However, I still get 4-6 hours out of it, which is better than most citrus colognes.
- Thread starter
- #12
Absolutely I did. Now, after comparing the two side by side there are considerable differences, but I still find some similarities too - at least to start out. I think the original is a more sharp citrus with some dry florals, and the parfum has some of those same citrus notes, but then there is some sweetness that sets in. A sweetness that is way too familiar and calls to mind all the newer woody/amber frags that are popular now. I can't believe I didn't notice that until I smelled the EdT and parfum side by side, but it wouldn't be the first time. While I don't find the parfum offensive - I quite like it actually - I think it lacks the originality of the EdT. I'm going to give both a few more wears, and probably do a couple more side by side comparisons, but at this moment if I were to buy a full bottle it would be the EdT.
Fair enough
I agree that the EdP is well crafted, but the original is brilliant and Edmond Roudnitska's best masculine.
In fact, many of the best perfumers today will tell you that ES is one of their favourite masculines of all time.
The new formula is a great in-between fragrances: not as light as a true "eau" but not as heavy as my other fragrances.
I only get two hours out of the EDT also. Yet when I mentioned this on Basenotes years ago, I had quite a few people say it lasted 24 hours on them. So definitely time your sample for longevity when you get it.
To my mind, Eau Sauvage EDT is very good but not worth full price if it doesn't last on you. Eau Sauvage Extreme has lots of lasting power, but isn't really the same as the regular EDT version.
Regards,
Renato
To my mind, Eau Sauvage EDT is very good but not worth full price if it doesn't last on you. Eau Sauvage Extreme has lots of lasting power, but isn't really the same as the regular EDT version.
Regards,
Renato
Sillage, projection and longevity are different things. People often have unrealistic expectations when it comes to all three.
For ex., it is not uncommon to hear that Chanel Pour Monsieur has poor longevity when it in fact does not. Like any fragrance, it is strong out of the gate, but dries down to a serene and quiet hum that projects only a few inches above your skin and lasts all day. You gets wafts of it throughout the day reminding you of how wonderful the small pleasures in life can be. And only those next to you will smell it. It is never out of place, and it will never overwhelm your senses (or others). It becomes like a second skin, but better.
And remember, just because you don't smell it doesn't mean other can't.
Lastly, it is IMO that a fragrance worn on a man should never over project, aspire or leave a cloud in the wearer's wake.
