The original Giorgio Beverly Hills is suprisingly chypre like (Giorgio Beverly Hills 1981) with a deep, green freshness at first. It’s luxurious, floral, a bit overwhelming and heavy and sadly doesn’t work the best with my chemistry at first. However, as it progresses and becomes slightly powdery it changes and turns into a very lovely fragrance with tons of sillage. It’s sexy in a very 1980’s way but still demure. It brings images of shoulder pads, heavy make-up and pastel colors to mind.
By the drydown it mellows a bit and becomes shimmery, creamy but still a little Earthy with a green vibe that feels straight from the 1970’s (1981, when it debuted, is still the early 80’s of course). It’s even slightly spicy in the drydown. The original Giorgio Beverly Hills is a very multi dimensional beautiful fragrance (if you can find it).
However, of course, the original is no longer being made as Avon, for about $165 million dollars in 1987, purchased it from Giorgio Beverly Hills and eventually the rights to the fragrance were transfered to Elizabeth Arden. The Elizabeth Arden version, the current formulation, and the original are almost two different scents. In my humble opinion the older is better for most of the duration but they become the most similar in the late drydown and that’s when the newer version is the best. The newer version gains a bit of depth and a softness in the late drydown and by then the older is more of a genial floral chypre (as described above).
For the majority of the time on the skin the newer version has more emphasis on tuberose and carnation. It’s sweeter, shrill, sharp, and while my chemistry tolerates it better at first than the original it’s a rather unpleasant foamy carnation. The original eventually turns into something grand while the newer version just fusses around in mediocrity on the skin (I still like it though) until the very end. However, again, in the late drydown it does become very light and almost clean and crystalline. It’s pretty but not beautiful as it lacks the amount of depth, and punch of the original along with the ability to bloom on the skin into a well balanced (albeit heavy) bouquet.
Last night I watched two movies. I watched “The Notebook” and “Roman Holiday.” And I was reminded why I adore “Roman Holiday,” and why I both loathe and admire “The Notebook.” But, the thing is, aside from being cloying and cheesy (please don’t hate me) I actually appreciate the message “The Notebook” sends about love more than “Roman Holiday.” As annoying as the Nicholas Sparks movie is, it has more hope and I think that that’s both truly scary and important.
There are actual couples in this world who are as fortunate and happy as stars of the Sparks film, and I think that it’s easy to assume otherwise. I think it’s really rare and so many things have to align for it to happen that it’s hard to believe it exists… But it exists. And that’s scary, because if a person believes that people can actually be that happy with each other life becomes both infinitely better and worse. You might reach the moon, but most will never leave the trees… sadly.
And yet, I think that when you stop to ponder how impossible everything is and how “lucky” people often are in so many countless ways, it sort of points to the existence of God. And it illuminates how many of us have our own miracles to be grateful for…
For example, when we communicate with people (in any way) we take so many chances. Don’t we? And I don’t mean the chance of ultimately getting hurt ourselves, I mean we take chances of hurting other people in small or possibly profound ways. And yet, so often people actually have meaningful, life-long friendships. It’s amazing… And even when people do get hurt, there’s often a chance that, if we’re “lucky” we can fix it…
And, as a rather light aside, I hope that someday I’ll be lucky enough to find a haircut that flatters my face even half as much as Audrey Hepburn’s did in “Roman Holiday…”