Marc Jacobs Blush : Perfume Review

33333

Mj_blush

Star rating: 5 stars–outstanding/potential classic, 4 stars–very good, 3 stars–adequate, 2 stars–disappointing, 1 star–poor.

The transparent porcelain beauty of Marc Jacobs Blush has a deceptive quality of innocence, which leaves one unprepared for its sensual embrace. It is as if the sheer lace of floral notes slips to reveal warm skin. The suggestion of the woody muskiness of cashmeran is delicate, yet its presence brings the soft petals of Blush to life, intriguingly sullying their pristine whiteness and gracefully anchoring the floral transparency.

One may wonder why someone needs yet another jasmine accented floral, adding to numerous compositions that explore its indolic spiked sweetness, from misnamed Chanel Gardénia (1925) to The Different Company Jasmin de Nuit (2005). …

Created by Steve Demercado in 2004, Blush is an example of a modern floral that manages to recreate the sensation of being near a blooming jasmine and inhaling a mélange of its sweet scent, cool air and verdant foliage. Blush is a good example of how synthetic materials can result in something that does not smell artificial.

There is no mistaking Blush for a retro composition, neither in the fresh clarity of its floral accord, nor in the linearity of its construction. The refrain of jasmine scattered among sweet floral petals repeats unchanged, yet the subtle accents appear and fade, whether it is the dazzling sparkle of freshness in the top notes, the delicious peachy sweetness in the heart or the sensuality of woody musk in the base. Yet Blush has a romantic and nostalgic air about it, reminding me of something from the past. Hazy images flash in my mind—jasmine branches hanging over the wooden gate separating my grandmother’s garden from the courtyard; tiny white stars covering the pathway, perpetually damp because of the nearby waterwell; hiding from the midday heat to read Rabindranath Tagore and imagining his heroines, their raven hair covered with jasmine garlands… The poised loveliness of Blush with its subtle indolic and surprisingly sensual facet is enough for me to want yet another floral bouquet to admire.

Blush includes notes of jasmine nectar, bergamot, star jasmine, freesia, orange blossom, honeysuckle, musk, cashmere wood, sandalwood. Marc Jacobs fragrances are available from Sephora, Saks5thAvenue, Neiman Marcus and a variety of other retailers, as well as Strawberrynet.

Enjoyed this? Get blog posts via email:

Or, stay updated via:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS

31 Comments

  • Preya: This sounds lovely; I can’t wait to try it. And Tagore…ahhh…I was born in Calcutta, speak Bengali, and of course, love Tagore:) February 15, 2006 at 3:31am Reply

  • helg: Thanks Vic for the lovely description.

    However , to me , Blush has a slightly astringent property that somehow detracts from the sensuousness of the indolic jasmine. But I guess it adds to the younger aspect and appeal this perfume has.

    Do you perhaps know if Hedione is used in this? Compared with First , which uses loads of hedione (or even the green jasmine note in Eau Sauvage , also using this ingredient) Blush has less of a clean/warm aspect to my nose, more of a higher-pitched but less potent-smelling one. February 15, 2006 at 8:06am Reply

  • Judith: Hmmmm. . . this does sounds lovely. As another white-floral lover, though, I do feel I have plenty of jasmine already. . .But I suppose it’s easy enough to go sniff this and see for myself, so I will (with somewhat mixed emotions about how I will feel if I decide I simply must have another. . . :) February 15, 2006 at 8:16am Reply

  • Marina: Only yesterday I received a big sample of this from a very generous friend, and so I re-visited the scent. It is lovely. Just like you said, nostalgic and romantic! February 15, 2006 at 9:23am Reply

  • marchlion: Elitist niche-perfume frag snob that I appear to be, this is one of the scents that is completely worth stopping for when I’m blowing through our boring dept. store perfume department. You expressed beautifully its feeling of utter modernity and at the same time some nostalgia. I wish I could fast-forward 25 years and see which of the other 2004 frags will still be here. I am hoping this is one. February 15, 2006 at 9:45am Reply

  • Victoria’s Own: Definitely in my top ten maybe even my top five. I love the way this one wafts in and out during the day. I like to point out there really isn’t any regular ol’ jasmine in it, it’s jasmine nectar, jasmine accord and star jasmine. That’s why it never gets heady or idolic. Last month I splurged on the Parfum, ahhh so lovely.
    Victoria O February 15, 2006 at 11:07am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Preya, I envy your ability to speak Bengali, which is the language I would learn just to be able to read Gitanjali in the original. As for Blush, it is lovely. February 15, 2006 at 11:19am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: E, it does not have the heavy sensuality of classical jasmine, being accented with ozonic and hesperidic notes in the top. However, I do notice a little bit of indole, which makes a positive difference for me. Something like Fresh Pink Jasmine simply strikes me as synthetic and boring, whereas Blush has much more nuance. I am fairly positive there is hedione in it. It is difficult to imagine jasmine without hedione these days. February 15, 2006 at 11:27am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: J, sometimes one has to ask oneself how many jasmines are enough. I am still struggling with an answer to this question! :) February 15, 2006 at 11:28am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: M, I also notice honeysuckle here, and the scent is reminiscent of some flowers my grandmother grew, but perhaps, not any single flower, but rather a whole bouquet of them. February 15, 2006 at 11:35am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: March, I do like Marc Jacobs fragrances very much, from MJ Perfume to MJ for Men, a perfect fig. Blush has a quality that makes it appealing–it manages to be modern, while eschewing sharpness that makes me back away from Estee Lauder Pleasures. So, here you go–an example of a fragrance made from synthetic ingredients that does not smell artificial (I am referring to our recent discussion on this topic). February 15, 2006 at 11:38am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: V, the parfum sounds lovely, although I have not tried it. Star jasmine contains indoles, and I notice a subtle indolic aspect here, which for me is a good thing, because it lends an interesting sensual touch. In general, sheer and transparent when applied to florals can hold my interest only for so long. I like a bit of dirt (however conceptualized) with my flowers. February 15, 2006 at 11:43am Reply

  • Cait: So, was it perfume bay that you had a bad experience with recently, V? Because I love star jasmine but I’d love to get a better deal than my local Nordy’s can offer on this one. February 15, 2006 at 12:40pm Reply

  • Robin: Another one I need to revisit, V, and you have inspired me to do that soon. February 15, 2006 at 1:06pm Reply

  • violetnoir: V, I know that I am a perfume elitist, but it is so refreshing to read a review of a great fragrance that can actually be found at local Sephora! The same goes for your review of Chocolovers. Thanks to you, I tested it, loved it, and received a bottle from my Valentine yesterday. :):)

    Sometimes the fun is not in the chase, because that can become so tiresome. The fun is sometimes found in the easily obtainable, know what I mean?

    Hugs and extra love for your wonderful review! February 15, 2006 at 1:15pm Reply

  • Tania: I do really need to test this again, and this time on skin. (It can make such a difference.) BTW, the bottle for Blush reminds me of the bottle for Prada — this long rectangular thing in pink. February 15, 2006 at 2:45pm Reply

  • Laura: I agree with Violetnoir. Will have to seek this out. You make things sound so lovely. February 15, 2006 at 2:50pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Cait, yes, it was. I would recommend Strawberrynet. Moreover, they offer a variety of discounts and the shipping is very fast. February 15, 2006 at 4:24pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: R, I think that you might find it lovely. The jasmine notes here are very nice here. February 15, 2006 at 4:28pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: R, I can never be a snob, because gems can be uncovered anywhere. As you say, enjoying perfume is not necessarily a function of it being rare (even if that might add to the cache). After all, beauty is what matters the most.

    I am glad to hear that you ended up liking Chocolovers. I thought that you might really appreciate it. February 15, 2006 at 5:05pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: R, I can never be a snob, because gems can be uncovered anywhere. As you say, enjoying perfume is not necessarily a function of it being rare (even if that might add to the cache). After all, beauty is what matters the most.

    I am glad to hear that you ended up liking Chocolovers. I thought that you might really appreciate it. February 15, 2006 at 5:09pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: T, speaking of Prada bottle, I really dislike the bulb atomizer on it, as I do in nearly all cases. They rarely look good, and they leak. February 15, 2006 at 5:10pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: L, I think that it is very pretty, and of course, a jasmine lover owes it to herself to try it. February 15, 2006 at 5:10pm Reply

  • michelle: I am finding that there are never too many jasmine-accented scents. Each one has something to offer, and I love each for what it brings to me. Will have to revisit Blush, as it did not appeal to me when I tried it, and I no longer remember why. You make it sound delectable, though.

    Speaking of jasmine-tinged fragrances, I just discovered an “oldie” – the original Ferre from 1984. What a lovely, easy-to-wear white bouquet – much like a silkier, more quiet Carolina Herrera (which I also adore). I’m glad it has taken its place among my florals. February 15, 2006 at 10:48pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: I have to agree with this, because I always find yet another jasmine to love. It is such a fascinating scent, and it is impossible for me not to moved by it. As for Blush, it is definitely less heavy than most jasmines, but it does not appear to be lacking in substance like some bright florals can be, nor does it have that piercing sharpness that makes me run away from Estee Lauder Pleasures. It is very lovely. February 16, 2006 at 1:06am Reply

  • cathleen56: I agree, you can never have too much jasmine, but so far I’ve found nothing that surpasses A La Nuit, so haven’t felt the need to expand. How does Blush compare to A La Nuit? February 16, 2006 at 11:39am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: A La Nuit is greener, less sheer, with a more pronounced indolic aspect. Blush is romantic and floating in comparison. February 16, 2006 at 2:53pm Reply

  • Joytika: I love the original MJ, but I was disappointed by Blush personally. The scent feels a heavy and has a slight sticky-sweetness to me.
    Although, BoisdeJasmin, your lovely description makes me want to re-try it. February 19, 2006 at 7:19pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Yes, you are right that it is heavier than the original, which has more transparency and an aquatic facet. I did not find Blush heavy or cloying though, however this might depend on what you like in a floral. I would be curious to see whether it improves upon another trial. :) February 19, 2006 at 7:49pm Reply

  • Daisy Williams: Very good and thorough review. Just what i wanted/nedded to decide. And colorful too. How do i get on your mailing list. I found you randomly. But i am a perfume junky (20+at a time) and want to read your reviews. Thanks again for this one! Daisy September 7, 2011 at 1:02am Reply

  • Victoria: Daisy, thank you. There are several subscribe options at the top left. Pick whatever suits you best!
    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile September 7, 2011 at 9:34am Reply

What do you think?

From the Archives

Latest Comments

Latest Tweets

Design by cre8d
© Copyright 2005-2014 Bois de Jasmin. All rights reserved.