I read that many T&H fragrances are clones of other perfumes. Anyone knows if also Trafalgar is a clone and if yes of which fragrance? Thanks
Is T & H Trafalgar a clone?
- Thread starter raul58
- Start date
Nope. Many a thread has been started by people asking if there is any other cologne that smells like T&H Trafalgar (in hopes of finding something that smells the same but has greater longevity on their skin). Not a one has come up with something else that smells like it, and it is widely thought to be one of the few (perhaps even the only) T&H scent that is actually original.
BTW - your timing is perfect. The reason I know this is because I too was looking for a Trafalgar clone just last week, and I spent a couple of hours researching it on many several shaving forums and the Basenotes fragrance forum...
In one of the many threads, there was one person who thought Creed Epicea smelled a bit like a close cousin to Trafalgar - but no else chimed in with agreement.
BTW - your timing is perfect. The reason I know this is because I too was looking for a Trafalgar clone just last week, and I spent a couple of hours researching it on many several shaving forums and the Basenotes fragrance forum...
In one of the many threads, there was one person who thought Creed Epicea smelled a bit like a close cousin to Trafalgar - but no else chimed in with agreement.
This is a very interesting question to me too. I say so because at times I believe I've smelled something similar to T&H in the air on someone in the room at work. But every time I use Trafalgar (rare occasion, mind you) it does smell different from what I thought was a clone.
I wonder if it hasn't been copied in some variation etc fother that it being the copy.
Chris
I wonder if it hasn't been copied in some variation etc fother that it being the copy.
Chris
So some people say 4711 smells similar... I think trafalgar smells like froot loops and dr Harris Arlington is pretty similar but nothing smells exactly like trafalgar
- Thread starter
- #5
Thank you. Yes, the too short longevity is the problem. I like it very much, I smell a gingery note in it while it seems that there is no ginger in the formula, maybe it's just my nose...
My memory of Trafalgar is pretty shaky at this point. It has been quite a while since I used any. But my recollection is that it is pretty much an aquatic/oceanic in the vein of some, even many, say, early 2000's scents and continuing to the modern day scents. So while not necessarily a clone of anything else, similar to many other scents. Just my thoughts though.
Last edited:
According to Basenotes, Trafalgar was introduced in 1986. Ironically, even though it is a fairly recent fragrance by T&H standards, it remains the original formulation, whereas almost all other T&H scents have been reformulated more recently. So, in that sense, Trafalgar is actually one of the oldest scents T&H currently produces.
At any rate, given the date of its formulation, it fits right in with that mid-to-late '80s scent ethos - think manly woods, balanced with sweet florals and a bit of spice. It practically belongs to a different age than the synthetic-citrus, unisex dreck introduced with the likes of CK One less than a decade later. I've not smelled anything else exactly like Trafalgar, but as others have said, it does evoke a number of other scents. I still enjoy it, though, particularly the shaving range of cream and a/s balm.
At any rate, given the date of its formulation, it fits right in with that mid-to-late '80s scent ethos - think manly woods, balanced with sweet florals and a bit of spice. It practically belongs to a different age than the synthetic-citrus, unisex dreck introduced with the likes of CK One less than a decade later. I've not smelled anything else exactly like Trafalgar, but as others have said, it does evoke a number of other scents. I still enjoy it, though, particularly the shaving range of cream and a/s balm.
Last edited:
I had a look at some on-line reviews of Trafalgar. An amazingly diverse set of ideas as to what the scent notes are. I still remember aquatic, but others would strongly disagree!
Yes, it is aquatic. It has reformulated but still a pleasant scent nonetheless.
When was it reformulated? I wasn't aware it had been.
Sometime in the late 90's or early 2000. Spanish Leather was ruined with the reformulation. It's a shame really.
I had heard from Gordon at Shave My Face (who is pretty knowledgeable about such things) that Trafalgar was not part of the reformulation at that time. According to him, Freshman, Clubman, Spanish Leather and West Indian Limes were all reformulated in the late 1990's or early 2000's to smell more modern. Pretty much all the truly older scents were re-done, but anything introduced after 1980 was left alone, and that included Trafalgar, which was introduced in 1986. (Grafton and 1805 were left alone, too.) In fact, it was Gordon who had made the point of saying, due to the other reformulations, that Trafalgar was one of the oldest formulations still offered by T&H; I was borrowing from him when I said that in my earlier post. I suppose he could be wrong, but he usually isn't. Personally, I don't know from firsthand knowledge, and am basing this all on hearsay. After reading your post, I did try to find some information on a reformulation, but haven't so far. Do you have any more information that might help us sort this out?
Last edited:
Gordon could be right. Nevertheless, I was introduced to T&H in the 90's while I was in New York. I bought Spanish Leather and Trafalgar at either Bergdorfs or Lord & Taylors. I bought both bottles because I was intrigued by the scents.
As most of my colognes, they last years before I have to buy a new bottle. When I bought again I noticed that the scents had changed. Trafalgar was still aquatic but it was a bit off.
As most of my colognes, they last years before I have to buy a new bottle. When I bought again I noticed that the scents had changed. Trafalgar was still aquatic but it was a bit off.
Thanks. That is what I thought. Distinctly aquatic. But I see various reviews saying the blue color is inconsistent with the scent and going on about such things as herbs and spice, which just seems odd to me. I would think that by the timing of first introduction, the color, and the name, T&H was thinking aquatic.
If we're trying to figure out what T&H was "thinking," we might consider their written descriptions. They describe Trafalgar as "spicy, light and captivating." In contrast, they describe 1805 as "fresh and oceanic." So it's not like T&H doesn't use aquatic-related terms as descriptors, but they didn't use such terms for Trafalgar, for whatever that's worth. T&H also lists Trafalgar's scent notes as "cedar and sandalwood complemented by subtle hints of jasmine and spice." So those who say it is spicy, woody or slightly floral aren't off base.
For that matter, how does one define "aquatic" in terms of scent notes, anyway? I'm not sure I know, but usually I think of synthetic and piercing fruit notes, not woods and sweeter florals. There was an interesting discussion on the matter on Basenotes a few years back, and even those scent-o-philes had trouble coming up with a working definition of the term, although a number of examples they listed as aquatic scents have that typical harsh, synthetic fruit core. (http://www.basenotes.net/threads/174969-)
For that matter, how does one define "aquatic" in terms of scent notes, anyway? I'm not sure I know, but usually I think of synthetic and piercing fruit notes, not woods and sweeter florals. There was an interesting discussion on the matter on Basenotes a few years back, and even those scent-o-philes had trouble coming up with a working definition of the term, although a number of examples they listed as aquatic scents have that typical harsh, synthetic fruit core. (http://www.basenotes.net/threads/174969-)
All of that is fair. I did know that that is how T&H described the scent. I should have at least mentioned it.
I suppose, based on that baseboard thread, when I say aquatic, I mean oceanic. And most of the scents I am thinking of probably have strong calone and haliagol or however it is spelled components. Not all. I would consider Creed SMW an aquatic, although not an organic and I doubt whether it has any of those components. VIW is not among the scents I am talking about.
All of that said,my memory of Trafalgar is oceanic, that sweet smell that actually smells like no water I am familiar with. And I know and trust Austin's nose. I do not really know what T & H had in mind. My impression is that T & H is not as serious a company as it once was. Just my thoughts.
I suppose, based on that baseboard thread, when I say aquatic, I mean oceanic. And most of the scents I am thinking of probably have strong calone and haliagol or however it is spelled components. Not all. I would consider Creed SMW an aquatic, although not an organic and I doubt whether it has any of those components. VIW is not among the scents I am talking about.
All of that said,my memory of Trafalgar is oceanic, that sweet smell that actually smells like no water I am familiar with. And I know and trust Austin's nose. I do not really know what T & H had in mind. My impression is that T & H is not as serious a company as it once was. Just my thoughts.
finished off today's shave with Truefitt & Hill Trafalgar, which was excellent, at least to my nose.
Yes, a bit sweet like Arlington, but also some floral and cedar notes.
A few hours later and still pleasant and lingering.
Yes, a bit sweet like Arlington, but also some floral and cedar notes.
A few hours later and still pleasant and lingering.
I once sprayed on some Polo Modern Reserve (RIP) at Macy's or Dillards and to my nose it reminded me of Trafalgar.
