Rochas Femme New and Vintage : Perfume Review



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

“Let me tell you, I created [Rochas] Femme in 1943 in Paris during the worst days of the war in a building that had a rubbish dump on one side and paint factory on the other,” remarked Edmond Roudnitska about one of his most sensual compositions, a perfume that smells of woman’s skin and ripe summer plums.

Some perfumes become classics because they are based on appealing, commercial accords (carnation and patchouli, patchouli and maltol, to name some examples), and others gain the status of legends because of their haunting beauty, even if it presents a challenge. Femme’s beauty is arresting and spellbinding, its main accord heavy like a heart filled with longings. …

Its perfection lies in Roudnitska’s ability to create a harmonious balance between aldehydes, fruit, woods and mossy notes. The dryness of Femme’s chypre accord is softened by the violet tinged plum; the tropical lushness of flowers is supported by the dense richness of sandalwood. I am overcome with emotion imagining this ravishing beauty created in the middle of a war torn city out of whatever materials Roudnitska could discover at the time.

That being said, it is not the easiest fragrance to wear, given its aggressive sensuality and lack of sweetness. Femme is seductive and cruel at the same time, a vision of beauty that makes one lose all senses. Partly because of its challenging nature, Femme has not escaped from being altered, and its perfection compromised by the changes that were implemented against Roudnitska’s wishes and without his involvement.

The complete reorchestration of Femme took place in 1989, when Olivier Cresp won the brief to modernize it while maintaining the integrity of the composition. This task is not unlike attempting to clothe Michelangelo’s David. Cresp recreated his vision of Femme based on the memories of the sublime classic being worn by women in his family. The reorchestrated version maintains the chypre voluptuousness of Femme, fusing a cumin note into the plum and peach sweetness. It is lighter and more gourmand than the classical version. Despite my misgivings, I would say that it is a well-done reorchestration, and while I enjoy it, the new Femme would never displace the original Roudnitska’s version for me. As certain beautiful visions leave a long lasting impression, Femme will always be the glorious dream filled with a bittersweet yearning.

Rochas Femme includes notes of bergamot, peach, prune, rose, immortelle, jasmine, ylang-ylang, ambergris, musk, oakmoss, sandalwood. It is available from select retailers and a variety of discount online stores. Femme comes in a bottle designed like a female form, with the rounded shoulders and wasp waistline invoking the models used by Marcel Rochas, inventor of the bustier.




  • Prisca: Dear Victoria – Thank you for your review of this great oeuvre d’art. In 1964 (at the age of 20!) this fragrance was my first “great love”. It never abandonded me completely during all these years and I was quite sad when reorchestrated in 1989. However Femme did survive and is always a glorious perfume.
    Thank you for your fascinating site and the interesting reviews. I was very happy when I discovered the address in January. Mille merci – and please excuse my poor English! February 22, 2006 at 5:06am Reply

  • N: Dear V – thank you for a lovely review. I am sad that the original creation was reformulated. The newer version is too heavy on cumin imo. A dear friend sent me some of the original and that I love that because I can barely detect cumin. I love cumin in cooking but not in perfumes. 🙂 February 22, 2006 at 3:51am Reply

  • annE: I have never sniffed the original Femme, and I don’t care for the current version – I agree with N that cumin is wonderful in cooking but not generally in perfume. Looks like I have another name to add to my vintage searches. Thank you for a wonderful, evocative review! February 22, 2006 at 9:25am Reply

  • Liz: Someone needs to get together a coffret of vintage classics and sell them on ebay for an astronomical price. I’d be tempted. But I like the reformulated Femme very much. It’s hard for me to imagine what the original smells like if the reformulation was intended to be more commercial and easier to wear (all that cumin!). I’m wearing its skinnier sister today: Mitsouko. Thanks for the great review, V! 🙂 February 22, 2006 at 9:55am Reply

  • Anya: A great review of a great perfume. Thanks for the background of its birth, who would think such beauty could come from such horror? I’m lucky to have discovered this in my youth, as Prisca did, and have known the glorious juice of the original Femme. I think I’ll stick with that, as I cannot stand cumin in a perfume, and would probably get ill smelling it in the reworked Femme. February 22, 2006 at 7:01am Reply

  • helg: Thanks V for mentioning this great perfume.

    The plum note comes from methyl ionone ( a group of fruity smelling synthetics) that was left in a barrel of a factory for about 20-30 years! Suffice to say it gave a “patisserie” quality that is still enjoyed today and accounted for its success.

    To me Femme is rather sweet , not particularly dry and is quite easy to wear , provided the circumstances allow a potent blend. It’s so feminine!
    The cumin in the newer formula doesn’t bother me on iota. It’s a sexy addition , I think. February 22, 2006 at 7:38am Reply

  • Marina: Seductive and cruel, definitely! I adore this one too. Thank you for the beautiful review! February 22, 2006 at 8:58am Reply

  • Robin: V, does the original have anything in common with Parfum de Therese? February 22, 2006 at 2:02pm Reply

  • Tania: You make me long to try the original version. I know I have a sample somewhere. I anticipate another one of these futile evenings of me scrabbling through countless vials and never finding the one I want.

    Re: Roudnitska’s surroundings, it strikes me that, in his wartorn industrial surroundings, he was composing in a milieu befitting to a bohemian artist, not a mercenary perfumer for hire. The story gives the fragrance an added layer of wonder, and thank you for it. 🙂 February 22, 2006 at 9:45am Reply

  • Linda: Great review, V! Femme was my mom’s signature perfume and whenever I think of her I imagine the cloud of Femme. She stopped wearing Femme when they reformulated it. I should look for a bottle of vintage on ebay. February 22, 2006 at 3:25pm Reply

  • violetnoir: V, I hate to admit it, but I have never had the desire to even test this or any of the Rochas line, except Absolu and Femme. I did not like the former, but the latter was intriguing, even mysterious. It’s a true classic.

    However, now that I know it has been re-formulated, I want to test the original. I bet that it was a beauty, and I love the bittersweet story behind its creation. I guess if one tries hard enough and uses his or her imagination, beauty can be found even under the most trying of circumstances.

    Hugs to you for such a gorgeous review! February 22, 2006 at 3:30pm Reply

  • Ayala: Femme is one of my favourite perfumes ever, it is truly feminine and to learn about how it was made in the midst of post war chaos makes me love it even more. It’s a genious creation by one of the perfumers I admire the most (the other being Jacques Guerlain).
    I first tried the modern version, with which I fell in love instantly.
    The cumin is very handsom in this composition, adding warmth and sweetness to the dried fruit accord. The dry down is sweet and ambery (I don’t find Femme to be a dry perfume at all!) and very feminine. It’s a dark, sophisticated, warm perfume which I enjoyed very much wearing in the summer and early fall.

    However, when sprayed it can be quite overwhelming with an unbeatable silage, so I have started looking feverishly for the parfum.

    I finally got one from a fellow perfume addict – about 5ml of vintage Femme, and it’s out of this world. If I liked the EDT/EDP of the modern version, I am completely infatuated with the original parfum: it’s leathery and mysterious, dark and actually a lot more easy to wear than the modern version (anyways, the sprays…). It’s soft and voluptous and just perfect. It smells a lot like osmanthus absolute, actually. The leather notes far more pronounced, there is no cumin of course, and it is ever so feminine – the perfume version of a woman’s scent… It’s very intimate andn seductive, and perhapst that is why I don’t reach for it very often, and treasure it’s rare beauty. February 22, 2006 at 11:26am Reply

  • Laura: I am so lame! All I remember about Femme is that it packed a huge, girly punch and it wasn’t for me. See, I told you. I’m so impressed with all of these articulate admirers’ comments. February 22, 2006 at 11:31am Reply

  • michelle: I love Femme in all of its incarnations. I have worn it since my late teens, and the love affair has never dimmed. Of course, I wish they’d simply left it alone – since it was a masterpiece the first time around. At least the parfum allows me to enjoy the original.

    Each time I revisit it, I always take a deep breath and say to myself, Now THIS is perfume!. I guess it’s a standard of some sort for me – it is rich and deep and beautiful and sophisticated and above all, interesting and womanly. Thanks for writing about it! February 22, 2006 at 4:48pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Dear N, I do not mind cumin at all in the reformulated version, but it is so different in spirit from the original that I cannot by treasure my vintage bottle. February 22, 2006 at 4:00pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Prisca, thank you! I have a special relationship with my own first perfume loves, and even if some of them I can no longer wear, I cherish them nevertheless. You right, it is important that at least Femme survived. February 22, 2006 at 4:01pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Anya, I find the story very moving. It proves that genius can operate under any circumstances. I do not think that you should like the new version, because the cumin is rather heavy. February 22, 2006 at 4:02pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: E, I agree that it is quite amazing how Roudnitska was able to find the ingredients. Methyl ionones smell like woody violets, and here that effect is evident. They are not fruity, although they can give off an interesting plummy effect, as in Feminite du Bois (especially paired with woods). I find the plum note to be abstract to say the least, but paired with other notes, it simply shines. The vintage version strikes me as leathery rather than sweet, and it is just a brilliant juxtaposition of accords. February 22, 2006 at 4:05pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: M, thank you. I love that it keeps me guessing till the end. February 22, 2006 at 4:05pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Ann, cumin is one of those notes that I do not mind nearly as much as most other people I know. However, yes, if you do not like it, I cannot see how the new Femme would be wearable. I hope that you can get a chance to try the vintage. It is gorgeous. February 22, 2006 at 4:06pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: T, when I first came across the story and Roudnitska’s original quote, I became even more enthralled with the already beautiful fragrance. Of course, growing up in Ukraine, the memories of war are strong even for people my age, even though I was born about 30 years after it ended. February 22, 2006 at 4:08pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Liz, that would be a stellar idea, but I doubt that I would buy decants of vintage fragrances. They are just too fragile. As for Mitsouko, it is gorgeous. Different from Femme, but likewise, a work of art. February 22, 2006 at 4:10pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Ayala, thank you for your interesting insights. I recall smelling osmanthus absolute and being struck by how aggressively leathery it smelled. It was stunning. I am yet to find a similar effect in the perfume. You are right, Femme definitely has that quality, with its fruity, floral and leathery facets combined. February 22, 2006 at 4:12pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: L, you are not lame! And that is a good comment–Femme packs a punch, and that is what makes it challenging. February 22, 2006 at 4:13pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: R, not particularly. They are rather different, although both have the leathery aspect pushed to the front. February 22, 2006 at 4:13pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Linda, fragrances that remind us of our mothers… Mine wore a number of fragrances, but one of them was Diorissimo. I still have a soft spot for it. February 22, 2006 at 4:14pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: R, thank you! I am glad that you sought out Femme. I was not thrilled with Absolu, but I like other Rochas fragrances–Byzance, Mystere (before it was changed), Lui, Madame Rochas. Femme is my favourite, hands down. February 22, 2006 at 4:16pm Reply

  • Constance: V, what a beautiful review!I love the talent and your words. This goes on my list as I love cumin in my fragrances. Go figure! February 22, 2006 at 4:19pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: C, finally, someone else who loves cumin in fragrances! I fault the new Femme for not being the original Femme, but it is of course unfair. It is a lovely fragrance in its own right. February 22, 2006 at 4:23pm Reply

  • Cait: Another great post because it gives me information about chemicals and the history of a perfume’s formulation and reformulation. What are your sources for this information? February 22, 2006 at 4:27pm Reply

  • carmencanada: Dear V., Femme did a strange thing to me recently and of course, you know you’re partly responsible for it… Sampled the current version several times thinking “this isn’t me”, “it really isn’t”, then being unable to get it out of my head. And then the vintage… Well, we’re all agreed: in a way, like Michelle writes, this is what perfume’s all about. Femme, the word says it all… On another note, literally, I’m becoming totally addicted to Derby by Guerlain, which you recommended. It’s just moved to the top of my must have modern scents (Femme heads the vintage category). I feel Derby, with its dryness and the perfect legibility of its notes — oakmoss, carnation, cloves, then, yes, the unmistakable murmur of tuberose — could be my “default” scent: the one I wear when I just don’t know, can’t choose, need clarity. Thanks! February 22, 2006 at 5:37pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Cait, thank you. I think that it is a gorgeous fragrance, and even the new version is very well-done. As for sources, it is a hard question, because I have been interested in this topic for such a long time. So, my sources range from all sorts of books, journals, and personal conversations (not with Edmond Roudnitska though :), although how much would I have wished that during his lifetime!) To mention some of my favourite books, Michael Edwards’s books are among them. February 22, 2006 at 5:54pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Michelle, I also wish that they left it alone. I know that Roudnitska was not happy about the reformulations/substitutions of ingredients (do not know his thoughts on the new version, but I gather that he would not approve tempering with his masterpiece). You put it beautifully when you say, “Each time I revisit it, I always take a deep breath and say to myself, Now THIS is perfume!” I cannot agree more. February 22, 2006 at 5:57pm Reply

    • Sandy: I found a bottle of Femme Bathoil in the early 70’s on a clearance table and fell in love with it. I have not been able to find that same thing since and now see why. I don’t like the cologne and am not as excited about the perfume either. The oil had a long-lasting floral, leather scent that smelled like a bouquet of roses every time the wearer passed me by. This all must explain why I am still not impressed by the new OR vintaged parfums – I believe the aged crates in which it was formulated must have added the exact fragrance I so desire to find. Now, in the 21st century, I can’t find the scent I loved and would love to know of one similar. Maybe the Derby by Guerlain you mentioned? January 8, 2013 at 11:17pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Dear D, I knew that you would love Derby! It is excellent chypre, and yes, the murmur of white flowers is amazing. I also love the iris chill in the base. Here is another recommendation to you–Parfums de Nicolai New York. I am wearing it today, and I was just exchanging thoughts about it with Tania, who called New York a soul of Coty Chypre. It is more polished than Chypre, but it has the intriguing roughness of Coty’s classic. If you have tried it, I would love to hear your thoughts. February 22, 2006 at 6:02pm Reply

  • portlandia: Wonderful review – I am so glad I tried this one before 1989, but I think I was too young to wear it then. I never got a bottle of the new kind, so I never knew it had changed. Too bad. It was a masterpiece. February 23, 2006 at 1:05am Reply

  • Campaspe: Wow, you have totally outdone yourself here. What a fascinating, precise, beautifully written review, with one hell of an opening quote. The blog is just going from strength to strength. February 22, 2006 at 9:20pm Reply

  • Katherine: V, I’ve been lurking here and reading for several months now; your reviews are wonderful to read, frequently tempting me into treating myself to a new perfume! For example, today I’m wearing Black Cashmere – it’s snowing outside and it goes so well with snow – which I bought after reading your review. I’ll be trying Femme as soon as I can, I do love cumin (sometimes I can be found in the kitchen wafting the spice jar under my nose). Have you tried Alexander McQueen’s Kingdom? That has a very pronounced cumin note – my unsophisticated nose guesses that it’s not a particularly of perfumes (the cumin seems to drown the other notes out to start off with), but as well as the cumin it has a lovely rosey spicy woody drydown. February 23, 2006 at 4:23am Reply

  • carmencanada: I haven’t tried Patricia de Nicolaï’s scents in ages, the boutiques are sort of out of my beaten path. New York, the soul of Chypre… interesting. I’m just reading a new French book about the history of perfume, and the author draws a comparison between Coty’s creations and Fauvism and its heightened, nearly brutal contrast in colours. That’s what I feel from Chypre de Coty: it’s got something rough and almost deliberately barbaric about it. February 23, 2006 at 2:32am Reply

  • stefania: I confess I’ve never tried Femme, but when I read it’s a fruity-chypre I immediately thought: oh, it’s like Balmain de Balmain!
    Balmain is one of my favourite fragrances: it starts green and fruity (something like berries), then it gets woody and smoky. It’s a beautiful chypre, smells like a forties scent, it’s bold and unusual. I think it’d interesting if you wrote a review about the Balmain fragrances, like this one, or Miss Balmain, or Ivoire. Now that Jolie Madame and Vent Vert have been so badly reformulated, I think these are the best of the Balmain range! February 23, 2006 at 10:30am Reply

  • Anya: Ayala and Victoria, you have mentioned the loveliness of fruity-floral-leather scents. I find myself drawn to many of these, taking particular note of them after the surprise of the vintage Miss Balmain I got, and looking at my collection in a different way ;-). I would never have taken notice of my occasional dips into this genre of perfumes, as I didn’t classify them as my favorites. Perhaps they are still not my favorites in the scent family, but I have noticed a large number of them in my collection – mostly vintages — eg, Anais Anais, the Miss Balmain, Must de Cartier, cabochard, Miss Dior, etc. On some the fruit is not as pronounced, of course. V, perhaps you could some day do a series on this type of fragrance, as you have done with iris scents. Is it my imagination, or has this type of scent fallen from favor with perfumers, and they are not creating them (or as many) anymore? February 23, 2006 at 7:21am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: F, thank you very much! I am glad that staying up extra late to write this article paid off. 🙂 February 23, 2006 at 2:26pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Donna, I bought a vintage bottle several years ago, completely by accident. At first, I did not even realize how precious it was. Now, I am on a hunt for another bottle. February 23, 2006 at 2:27pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: D, I can completely see the link between Coty fragrances and Fauvism. Just compare L’Origan and L’Heure Bleue. Guerlain manages to fuse refinement into the rustic elegance of Coty (with successful results, however). Their savage qualities are so appealing. February 23, 2006 at 2:27pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Katherine, thank you very much and welcome! I am glad that my recommendations were good. I hope that if you try the new Femme, you will enjoy it. Cumin in Kingdom was a bit too much for me, but one cannot deny the sensuality of the final result. Perhaps, it was too overwhelming, because I understand that the fragrance was a flop for McQueen. February 23, 2006 at 2:28pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Fruity-floral-leather–that encompasses so much! I am not even sure what you mean. Miss Balmain and Femme are chypres. Must de Cartier is an oriental, in the vein of Shalimar. I do not notice much fruit in it. Anais Anais is a white soft floral. However, it would be interesting to do a series on fruity chypre, or anything that combines those facets. Admittedly, those articles take up an incredible amount of time to prepare, and I simply am running out of it these days. Hopefully, post-exam period, this might be easier. February 23, 2006 at 2:47pm Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: Stefania, I would love to experience Balmain de Balmain you are describing again. I bought a bottle recently, because I remember how beautiful it was. Well, the result was a thin, synthetic composition. I was disappointed, to say the least. Seems that it has also suffered… Miss Balmain and Ivoire have fared much better, though. February 23, 2006 at 2:49pm Reply

  • stefania: Actually, the Balmain de Balmain I have is something my mother bought for herself six or seven years ago. She never wore it, so I recently stole it from her bathroom.
    I had no idea it’s been reworked in the past few years, thanks for telling me. I won’t buy a new bottle! February 24, 2006 at 11:51am Reply

  • BoisdeJasmin: I was disappointed, to say the least. It was not even close to what it used to be… Enjoy your bottle! February 24, 2006 at 8:04pm Reply

  • jgilmore: I have searched for 25 yrs for another bottle of Jolie Femme(I had one bottle, and once it was gone it was irreplaceable—Miss Balmain is the closest I’ve come to it). Jolie Madame is very harsh and nothing like Jolie Madame–aside from the fact that J.Madame causes me to get a Miraine–something many scents do. Based upon your comments I’ll try Femme–but I think I’ve sniffed it in the stores, and not been impressed. March 20, 2006 at 1:34am Reply

  • adélie: oh, i’m always late to the party.

    i’ve been intrigued by “femme” for a while now and am delighted that you had a review of it on your site. this “glorious dream filled with a bittersweet yearning” description tugged at my heartstrings and now i’m more curious than ever.

    i’ve tried searching on ebay but i have a hunch that all the femmes listed are the new version. vic, do you know of anywhere where i can find the vintage edition? are there any fragrance forums where people exchange decants or something? i must get my hands on this mysterious creature!

    btw, i adore all your reviews. i wish i had found your site earlier.

    adélie July 13, 2006 at 4:08pm Reply

  • hester: I’m a lurker, but this perfume has driven me to comment! I bought my first bottle of Femme yesterday, at a discount chemist (the only place in South Africa, as far as I can tell, that stocks Rochas fragrances). I adore it; though I’m 25 it makes me feel extremely experienced, worldly-wise, debonair and most especially: womanly! This truly is what perfume should be.
    Thank you for this blog! Out here in the fragrance wilds this kind of blog is where all my perfume-info comes from. November 26, 2007 at 5:27am Reply

  • Louzya: I have been wearing femme since I was 17 and I am 65 now. The original was wonderful, and though I was dissapointed when the formula was changed, I have never stopped wearing it. It is not easy to come by now, and this is how I found this site, by googling rochas femme..Louzya December 1, 2007 at 2:14pm Reply

  • Robert: I’ve got to say how much I prefer the old, pre-1989 version over the cumin-tinged reiteration. It’s worth the premium. June 12, 2013 at 7:56am Reply

  • Marianne: The original Femme de Rochas was a masterpiece and I will forever remember my first English teacher, who wore it and wore it so well that we all clubbed together to buy her a (small) flacon when she left. Alas, the new one is just nowhere near as beguiling and double alas, it doesn’t suit me anyway. October 6, 2013 at 10:10am Reply

  • Kaleigh Bickleman: On first smelling this fragrance I was immediately hit by the dirty sensuality that it provides. I was very surprised and kind of taken back by the huge slug of cumin. While I can totally respect this fragrance I find it a it challenging to wear. However, I would think that gentlemen would find it rather attractive. Upon further inspection and actually wearing it on my skin, it was actually more forgiving than on blotter. I would be tickled to have the chance to smell the original! August 25, 2014 at 4:58pm Reply

    • Victoria: The newer version has cumin, but the original one doesn’t. I like both, but I prefer cumin in my food, not perfume. 🙂 August 26, 2014 at 8:38am Reply

  • Angela: Kayleigh’s comment makes me want to search out the new version of Femme out for it’s more pronounced cumin aspect. I found some comments from perfumaniac on another blog very informative re the fact that Routnitska routinely used cumin aldehyde (?) ( available in either pre aged prunol base or barrel five base) and that the cumin note in the vintage femme is much less noticeable. . . I believe a have a tiny bottle of older femme because I cannot detect much cumin in it. September 2, 2014 at 1:38pm Reply

    • Victoria: As far as I know, there was no cumin in the original version, and it was added in the reissued version. So, when I smell the two side by side, the cumin in the newer Femme is very obvious to me. The original was lush and deep, but without the musky-sweaty aspect that a cumin gives. September 2, 2014 at 1:51pm Reply

  • Angela: Thank you! This thread, like others, has sparked other wish lists! I am a fan of the original Jolie. Madame and on the suggestion of another post above, I added the vintage Miss Balmain to the ever growing list! September 3, 2014 at 10:16am Reply

  • Rosie: Dear V, I have long been intrigued by descriptions of Rochas Femme and have longed to try it, but where I am (Australia) it does not seem to be available in any brick-and-mortar stores and after being burned more than once with blind buys I’m reluctant to shell out AU$60+ on something that may not work on me. I recently noticed a bottle being sold on eBay of what’s labeled “Rochas Parfum de Toilette Femme”. A couple of reviews on Fragrantica suggest that this *may* be one of the vintage formulations, but it’s really not clear. Do you have any info on this particular incarnation of Femme, and can you offer advice on whether it might be close to the original vintage Femme? Thanks in advance! May 16, 2016 at 2:25pm Reply

    • Victoria: The older versions of Femme were sold in this concentration, so there is a good chance it might closer to the original version. Should be fine as long as the seller stored it well. May 17, 2016 at 1:08pm Reply

    • Christine M: Dear Rosie
      I am from Sydney and have not found any specialist perfume stores here, but in Melbourne in the Royal Arcade the little shop Paint’n’Powder sells classic perfumes in store and online. I bought Femme edt last week there amongst other classics. Good luck! September 19, 2017 at 6:56pm Reply

  • Helene: Thanks V for your great review. After reading it, I decided to order a vintage bottle of Femme. I wore the 1989 version for many years but in 2013 we parted because of irreconcilable differences… I was curious to smell the differences between the original and the 1989 rework (I have some perfume left in a little bottle). And having received my original version ‘Parfum de Toilette’ and having spent a few days studying it your review is spot on. The 1989 version is more ‘gourmand’ the original to me is more spicy. I prefer the original, it is more complex, has more layers to it, there is more to discover. It holds very well on my skin and I love it so much, I wonder what will I do when I run out! it truly is an exceptional perfume… June 10, 2016 at 4:33am Reply

  • Cybele: Hi Victoria, do you know anything about more recent formulations of Femme? August 3, 2018 at 8:58pm Reply

  • Cecilia: Hi!
    I recently found a vintage bottle of Femme at a flea market, open but almost completely full, around the mid-fifties. I paid less than 10 euros and the seller, an old owner of a small, now bankrupt, perfumery just outside Milan, was kind enough to promise me to bring me other vintage perfumes (including my beloved Mitsouko!).
    Femme is delicious, smells of plum and suede on me. Only, the longevity is really minimal (three hours maximum), and the sillage almost completely non-existent. Someone would be able to tell me if it is a problem related to this specific perfume or if my bottle is riuned (which is quite possible, since it was already open and without original packaging)?
    Also, looking forward to buy the new edt version.
    Thank you!
    Cecilia February 26, 2019 at 4:12am Reply

What do you think?

Latest Comments

Latest Tweets

Design by cre8d
© Copyright 2005-2024 Bois de Jasmin. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy