Friday, November 28, 2014

Bullshitting the Bullshitter? Chanel Damage Control Over Lidl Fragrance Smell-Alike Sounds Skewed

I'm not a usual reader of the, but when the title "Yes, a £4 bottle of Lidl perfume CAN smell as good as Chanel: But be warned -it could wear off in half an hour" sneaked into my inbox, I just had to look at said article. And look I did and I have a truckload of rant on the sketchy argumentation trying to manipulate the consumer yet again on the part of the industry. There's a stink raised, so your faithful bloodhound got going.

Just two days ago I too had read the article titled "Revealed: Lidl's £4 perfume smells identical to Chanel's £70 scent -but the difference is in the bottle" after all. It  reiterated what money-saving expert Martin Lewis said in an interview with Radio Times (and which I already knew myself from experience), namely that the German supermarket Lidl's own brand fragrance Suddenly Madame Glamour (which costs £4, I kid you not, for 50ml/1.7oz in a pretty decent if plain packaging) smells the same as Chanel's Coco Mademoiselle which retails for £70. 
Yup, 15 times costlier, you read this right.

Vanessa Musson has written a detailed side-by-side review ages ago on just this and myself I had included Madame Glamour in Best Inexpensive Fragrances back in 2011. So the immediate response with caveat emptor about the longevity of Lidl's perfume smells of desperate damage control and at points it sounds like people in the field are embarrassing themselves.

With apparently close to 85% of women admitting they would occasionally buy a supermarket version of a fragrance for themselves -if they really thought it smelt the same- the reason for this isn't very hard to see. In fact according to data within the Daily Mail article, the Perfumer's Guild conducted a blind test in which 90% of women actually preferred the scent of the Lidl perfume over the Chanel!

The question whether luxury items differ from much more economic products in similar vein is the packaging, advertising and marketing costs behind it has been already explained only too well in industry's whistle-blowing worthy books by Chandler Burr, the former New York Times scent critic.
If you have missed the breakdown of a cost of fragrance, I urge you to read this old eye-opening article which explains how 100gr of eau de toilette perfume costs only 1.5 dollars to produce!

The tangent then becomes "will they [cheap perfumes] last as long -or vanish, or go off- after half an hour on your skin?"

So, now, let's dissect the arguments against the Lidl fragrance and for the Chanel and see if they hold any water. I'll be quoting from the article in red and presenting my own argumentation right below it in black.

"The main ingredient of all perfume is alcohol (anything up to 90 per cent), meaning that it is the remaining ingredients, labelled ‘parfum’ on the box, which make all the difference.Traditionally, the more expensive scents are those with the highest concentration of this parfum, meaning that an eau de toilette (4-10 per cent concentration) costs significantly less than eau de parfum (8-15 per cent) or pure parfum (15-25 per cent)." 

Correct and therefore it's only fair we should be comparing two similar concentrations: since Lidl's scent comes in only eau de parfum, since Chanel's comes in all three (eau de toilette, eau de parfum and extrait de parfum), we should focus on comparing Lidl eau de parfum against Chanel eau de parfum.

‘One of the main ingredients used in Chanel perfume is natural rose essence, which is one of the most expensive ingredients in the world. It is like gold,’ says Lawrence Roullier White, who runs an artisan perfumery in London.‘Petals do not give out much oil, so you have to distill tons of petals to get any rose oil, which all adds to the cost.‘One bottle of the Chanel perfume contains 1,000 jasmine flowers.‘These flowers, which are grown especially for the brand in Grasse on the French Riviera, are picked by hand and only at night to capture their full aroma.’The cost involved in producing such luxurious essential oils is huge.For example, to make just half a kilogram (1lb) of jasmine oil, 3.6 million flowers are needed at a cost of almost £3,000. Other ingredients in Coco Mademoiselle (named after Chanel fashion house founder Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel) include iris flowers from Florence, Sicilian oranges, French roses and essence from the rind of the citrus fruit bergamot, grown in the Italian region of Calabria."

False on many levels. First of all, all these precious ingredients do not necessarily enter into the eau de parfum (much less eau de toilette) edition, but only (if at all) in the extrait de parfum which is not the thing you regularly see on the department store counter. Chanel does admit to using the Grasse grown jasmine, rose and tuberose only in the extrait when talking about their iconic No.5. But furthermore the ratio of those is so low, that even the allergens regulations threshold (which had raised a furore back in 2008 as threatening to damage Chanel No.5) isn't met! And we're talking about the 0.7% threshold for Jasmine grandiflorum (that's the Grasse varity) in the finished compound, which is already -as per above- only aproximately 10% of the eau de parfum!!!
Then again Chanel has always relied on expounding their "precious ingredients lore".
Besides the bergamot even in the famed Shalimar by Guerlain (nestling its allure on the bergamot top note) is synthetically produced for many years now.

 Then mr.Laurence Roullier White, who runs an artisan perfume store in London (also distributing Caron, Marc Buxton, Farmacia SS.Annunziata, Parfums d'Orsay, Slumberhouse etc.) goes on record with some rather embarrassing, even butt-clenching if I say so myself, stuff.

‘At the end of the day, you get what you pay for,’ adds Mr Roullier White. ‘You cannot expect a £4 bottle of perfume to be the same as a £70 one. 

We have already proven above that fragrance costs very little to actually produce. Visit the eye-opening link mentioned above.

‘For £4, the essential oils will be completely synthetic. ‘Perfumes which are not made from natural essential oils do not last on the skin. 'Those which are, react to the body’s individual chemistry and can transform over time, becoming more floral or musky for example. For £4, you’d be lucky if it lasts half an hour.’ 

Talk about confused. Essential oil is a very specific term and denotes "nature derived". Therefore cannot be synthetic. Surprised mr.Roullier White works in perfume and conflates the two terms. He clearly means "the aromatic ingredients will be completely synthetic".  But as a niche distributor, surely he knows synthetics are often mentioned in niche fragrances official press (!?)

He furthermore undermines himself since every hardcore perfume lover knows that most all-natural perfumes are exactly criticized for their short-lived duration on the skin, while synthetically man-made essences have giga-lasting-power. This is after all one of the main reasons they're used so much! You can read about Iso-E-Super, Ambrox/Ambroxan and synthetic musks on the respective links and enlighten yourself, if you have missed them, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Besides their longevity, synthetics are wildly used for reasons of stability and unchangeability: they ensure a steady  product that doesn't fluctuate risking to alienate its faithful customer.

For the record, Lidl's Madame Glamour eau de parfum lasts a solid 3 hours on my own skin and several more on clothes.

Mr Rouiller White adds: ‘Some of the £70 you pay for Coco Mademoiselle factors in Chanel’s packaging and marketing, but there is no comparison between natural and manufactured essential oils.’ 

He is apparently continuing with the "manufactured essential oils" [sic] confusion. I do hope it's a misquote. And I suppose it was about time he admitted the pay check paid to Keira Knightly and all the people working with her, as depicted above.

The article then states "At times, the bottle may be even worth more than the scent inside, such as with limited-edition bottles of Clive Christian’s Imperial Majesty, which comes in Baccarat crystal with solid, 18-carat gold and white diamonds and which costs £115,000."

It sorta shoots its argument on the foot. If the juice inside is, as per Chandler Burr's breakdown, less than $1.5 then ANY packaging s automatically worth more than the scent inside, I would presume!

Unsurprisingly, many perfume makers are reluctant to reveal whether their product is made from natural perfume oils or synthetic chemicals imitating the real thing. 

There we go again: Natural is good, man-made is bad. Long-time readers know this is highly more complex than that and that in my view it all depends on the context and aesthetics. What initially made an impression, based on having tested both Madame Glamour and Coco Mademoiselle extensively and relying on my life-long experience and *cough cough* knowledge, gained alarming dimensions upon seeing that Chanel is directly "threatened" by the success of the lowly Lidl chain's perfumes and others (such as M&S Autograph line). 

Obviously not because the regular Chanel client will start buying Lidl fragrances, but because the aspiring Chanel user can do just as well without anybody being the wiser.

But the mere implication that a luxury perfume is better because its ingredients cost more, being of better quality, is skewed. If fragrance is an art form, as many of the advocates of posh perfume claim, then would you criticize a painting's worth on the cost of the paints it uses? Exclude imaginative creativity and visionary ability? To do so would be to automatically reduce it to a craft.  It's demeaning and uninformed.

You needn't feel like a fool buying Chanel fragrance (or any luxury perfume) from now on. As long as your choice is informed and you know what you're paying for, which in many cases is mostly the image you're buying into (and that's an art form too), it's an indulgence you can indulge in and it's YOURS to claim. Everything else is bullshit and should be called out on. 

The thing is, anyone can commission a gas chromatograph test (a test which reveals all the ingredients & their ratio in the composition of any given fragrance) and compare the two fragrances' "blueprint" side by side. It only costs around 100$, so if you're determined, you can do it.

A parting shot: Lidl makes excellent lipsticks in beautiful colors and lovely texture and longevity. They retail at 2 euros (!) locally. They only get imported & distributed once in a blue moon. The average Maybelline or L'Oreal lipstick costs no less than 12 euros locally. I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding why this erratic distribution pattern...

If after all this my post disappears without my desire or consent (things like that have happened in the blogosphere before) then you know what I said is the absolute truth and someone is scared for their fugitive profit margins. In any case, this is your food for thought, assuming Thanksgiving hasn't totally knocked you out (which is just as good and I hope you had a great time!)


  1. I have always thought the people who designed the Bottle and packaging should be the BEST PAID person in the Perfume Industry!!!

    *how many times do you hear a person say "Oooo, I love the bottle!!"

  2. Well said Ms Vosnaki!
    Aromachemicals do last longer than naturals and they are also safer because they are produced under a controlled environment (lab). Naturals are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and their quality can, and it does, become unstable.
    Expensive perfumes sometimes contain essential oils but it is always in a tiny percentage. They are used in order to add a certain richness and refinement to the formula which is usually made out of ~ 30 aromachemicals. A drop of rose essential oil for example will literally add another 300 ingredients into the mixture, an easy way to add complexity - something that human nose understands and appreciates.
    Mr Roullier, is obviously defending his business, here.
    Lastly, I do feel that the Lidl perfume smells very true to the original - not quite as good but good enough (perhaps the latest batches even better than before).
    Personally, I always keep a bottle of "Suddenly" in my car. It's not that it's cheap. It's that the Chanel one is too expensive! A perfume's raw materials are dead cheap. One pays the dream that comes with it and the creativity behind it. Which is priceless BTW! :)

  3. Miss Heliotrope05:51

    An amusing thing is, that those of us who are seriously into discussion & play with scent, whilst being aware of the basic cost & real/fake chemical arguments, actually still love a wide variety of them all. The more educated (thank you!) about perfume, the less these things "ruin" one's choice & the more they are part of the experience.

    So do they use more education or just go for sneering & scare tactics.

    Oh. Yes.

  4. Anonymous06:40

    Fascinating article. I am in complete agreement with you. Although, one thing I find surprising and rather disappointing (i am still relatively new to perfume and am still learning) is that EdPs and EdTs do not use the same ingredients as extraits. i had previously been under the impression that the ingredients were the same, but just in much, much smaller quantities in the EdT/Ps.

  5. Well said, as usual. However, it doesn't appear that Chanel was doing damage control, at least directly - nowhere do they cite Chanel pub affairs.

    Chanel and other brands have faced the issue long ago with clothes: how do you distinguish your product from imitations, from Zara downward? Presumably, the usual strategy is not to say anything.

    In any case, I must say the current iteration of Coco mad isn't particularly exciting to start with. Now, if they were to make a decent copy of Bois des Isles or Cuir de Russie, I would be truly impressed.

  6. Well said! Great article, I'm disappointed at the blatant misrepresentation of the truth, but not surprised frankly! I think the Lidl perfume smells great! I don't think it smells exactly the same as the Chanel but I like it just as much (if not more) and the quality is just as nice. I don't think I would be able to pick it out as not one that would be sold in a department store for 15 times the price. Also, some of those are terrible quality to my nose but you don't see articles bemoaning the 'cheap smelling' and 'synthetic' ingredients used in more expensive perfumes that are incredibly popular, never mind mentioning their terrible lasting power, or the fact that they are vastly over priced, in main stream media! The only down side to the Lidl perfume is that it is only sporadically available in my local Lidl!

  7. What a great post. The beauty of Coco Mademoiselle has always eluded me. It smells horrible on me, but I like it on others. Madame Glamour smells just as good on my 14 year old daughter as Coco Mademoiselle does on my 17 year old daughter. I can't tell the difference. We like fragrance for the way it smells, the way it makes us feel and the memories that come along with it. The whole experience. The cost or the bottle is not what matters.

  8. Anonymous13:34

    A tip: Don't litter your well-written articles with pointless reaction .gifs. It's a real pain to try to read an article with those things flashing away amidst the text.

  9. We don't have Lidl, where I live, but it sounds fantastic. I was unsure at the end though whether the lasting power of the one did outdo the other, or not. Also, if some people prefer the Lidl then it sounds like it is not an exact replica...

    Personally I have not found replica type perfumes to be very good - but I have only tried a handful, and I suspect they are all the same company, here in SA. Its not the longevity that is an issue so much as the actual scent. I do think comparing is a great olfactory exercise!

  10. Anonymous19:20

    a supermarket chain makes perfume?...
    well we have fragance in our detergent and fabric anything is possible...

  11. Anonymous00:26

    This article is fabulous, I have one small issue. As an artist, I can not sell an oil painting and tell you it is acrylic or a watercolor.


  12. Love it! You just made my boring Sunday evening!! I wish everyone could speak as clear Elena. This man runs a niche perfumery?? Then no doubt who the bullshitter is. Thank god most of us know a couple of facts this man obviously does not! :)

  13. Anonymous07:23

    Great article! For an "untrained" nose the fragrance from Lidl does smell like the real thing.

    Greetings from Vienna:-)

  14. Nathan09:14

    Great article, as usual.

    The quality of designer fragrances(and others)has gone done dramatically over the last 20 years. Their product is no longer wearable, for me.

    For a while I thought that it might be due to the restrictions on certain ingredients, but, from what you have so elegantly shown, it seems it is down to cheapness of ingredients and incredible greed.

    They have really conned us: I bought a bottle of Guerlain Coriolan when it came out, it probably cost the equivalent of €70 today. Now they have rebranded it and released as L’Âme d'un Héros in their 'Les Excusifs' line, at €180.

    They are not the only ones who have these exclusive lines, as you well know.
    What has happened is that they have tripled the price for their normal fragrances (now branded as exclusive) and created watered-down filth now sold as their normal range. Very clever!

    What other industries could get away with such a blatant quality drop? I cannot buy a wine for €0.5 which tastes anything remotely like a well-chosen €10 bottle(even at €2 it would be barely drinkable), but Lidl seemed to have vaguely managed it in the perfume sector.

    Will the appearance of good cheap copies force the big perfume brands to use better quality ingredients? I hope so... they won't be getting my money until they do.

    P.S. If your reading this Guerlain, stop killing your brand with commercial scents. You made your money and reputation with artistic fragrances. Dare to be unique and you will still make money...

  15. Anonymous21:49

    Lidl needs to come to America! I would love a cheap, good lipstick, and a decent riff on Chanel! Ha.

    cheers my dear,

  16. SMF,

    glad you do, thanks!!

  17. M,

    I also think that (although don't really care for it, if I love the scent), the packaging is part of the experience of fragrance. It plays a significant role in the whole thing. Even if we perfumistas snub it from time to time.

    Happy December!

  18. ION,

    thank you!

    I think the whole balancing act of touting the quality ingredients without mentioning (or mentioning minimally) the synthetics is very risky to play. Few play it successfully and only frank players get respect in the end (Malle for all his selling the brand to Lauder has always been frank on these matters, so one respects the line and acknowledges that they're not paying for the essences but for the creativity and exclusivity).
    Niche has an especially difficult job justifying this, so I suppose the quotes are in that spirit

    The Lidl is as you say "good enough". The problem this how Chanel should be? This says more about the Chanel than the Lidl one.

  19. MH,

    indeed. But just how many of those buying niche or exclusive luxury items does know these things in the end? If we take what Tauer says to heart (i.e. that perfumistas comprise only about 1/4 and lower than his share, and we're talking about a very small in terms of recognition line), then it gains new perspective, right?

    Education is the difficult, high road. The other one is what we hear about and see perpetuated.

    Like ION says above, at some point someone needs to realize that when you pay luxury you pay for a dream, for creativity and for imagination. Not for flour, eggs and butter. At least not necessarily only for that. ;-)

  20. Anon,

    thank you for saying so, you're very kind.

    The difference in formulation sometimes has to do with the legibility of the fragrance due to the diffusion being aided by the added alcohol (so one adjusts the ratio or even the whole formula accordingly, for instance an EDT might contain added top notes for grabbing attention, since it's more sparkly) But also sometimes due to cost considerations. Since few people buy the extrait, the added costs are reflected in the price of a commodity that isn't the bread-winner of the brand. Makes sense.

  21. M,

    sharp eye!! :-) (Not that I expected anything less).

    My title is meant to grab and drive the focus into the companies. Indeed Chanel doesn't go officially on record saying anything, because what could they say, really?

    Their asset is that they came up with the composition first and their creativity is what is being sold (and copied). But that doesn't cut it with the average customer. It's the same customer who asks "what is it made of, pure gold?" when faced with a high price for an artifact or art object. They fail to recognize the intricacies of the creative fields. But it's not their fault!

    They haven't been properly educated in that regard and the companies have fed them lies for years. So now they're searching for "rare essences painstakingly harvested in the lengths and widths of the earth" and get disappointed when something else smells just as good without any similar claims....

  22. LB,

    yes, the focus isn't what this says about Lidl but what it says about Chanel. If you can't pick up the differences in a blind test, then this is rather telling for the overall quality of the perfumes of contemporary years, isn't it?

    Niche and luxury want to play it both ways sometimes: mention the synths sporadically and yet not have the customers complain about "cheap ingredients".

    I think consumers are going to be slowly disillusioned and we're going to have a turn into more designer brands in the future. The older brands are already reclaiming customers.

  23. KK,

    you're very kind. :-) Thanks!

    Well, I have a friend who says the same thing re: CMlle's appeal/non appeal.

    And I do agree 100% on the whole experience you describe when wearing perfume. Beautifully said!

  24. Anon,

    constructive criticism, so thank you very much for this!
    I got carried away I suppose this time. Will refrain myself in the future with a gentle consideration for my readers' eyes.

  25. Merlin,

    they do make some things very well, it's suprirising really because it highlights just how overpriced the regular items are. The lipsticks are a good example. For 2€ you get the quality of an above average lipstick with a plastic case that actually makes a clicking noise when closing. (can't beat that!) Why pay 12 for L'Oreal? If you ask why pay for TF or Chanel's lipsticks though, then yes, there is a difference, but it's exactly because of the greater selection and the much more beautiful packaging. But in lipsticks you're not used to hearing all this "lore" about ingredients, do you? A product either works or it doesn't. Perfume is so much more escapist....

    Not terribly experienced with replica type perfumes and a bit afraid of some of them (why not buy the original if one loves it), but some smell alikes (from other respected brands, I mean) do come in handy if one has a discontinued favorite or wants to do something a bit more economically.

    And yeah, comparing is a great exercise!! Great point!

  26. Anon,

    I don't know whether you're a regular reader or not, but most people reading here and on other blogs and fora know that the same companies who manufacture your designer (or niche) perfume also manufacture the commissioned perfumes by supermarkets etc. They even recycle the formulae from time to time (with minimal changes so as to be within the letter of the law).
    They also manufacture the scent/flavor that your fabric softener, your favorite laundry detergent, your yoghurt or lipgloss has.

    Google IFF, Givaudan, Takasago, Firmenich etc. ;)

  27. Angel painter,

    thank you!

    True what you say of course. But it doesn't really matter in the end (to the buyer, I mean, not the artist) whether your pigments come from Talens or RGH Artists. It just doesn't end up in the sales pitch, does it?

  28. Alex,

    glad I did, then!

    Like I said above to another commentator, niche and luxury have a difficult balancing act on how to do a sales pitch. They need to justify their high prices. And they go for the uneducated "it's made of high quality ingredients" line because it's often the only one the customer is trained to follow. This also has to do with the massification of luxury, the masstige, which is an intricate market phenomenon that we're experiencing. Older generations -when only old money and aristocracy had access to luxury- knew what they were paying for.

  29. Gina,
    thanks honey!

    You know, I find them very similar myself, almost identical. The only small thing is that the Lidl EDP smells more like the Chanel EDT (rather than the denser EDP) and lasts accordingly to that one (4 hours on average on my skin). So there is a difference, but nothing as dramatic as the niche owner suggests in the article.

  30. Nathan,

    glad you enjoyed!

    As you say, the quality has gone down so dramatically :-( (things from the 80s smell so darn good and so dense and vibrant and rich and yes, innovative that they could pass for niche nowadays).

    And the issue you bring of re-branding a previously mainstream fragrance, after first discontinuing it, at an expotentially elevated price point is courting the line with a soft of knowledgable fraud.

    Guerlain is annoying with these re-issues and they did do it a hell of a lot during the LVMH high reign period (shortly after they gained complete control). Thankfully Wasser shows that he cares about the brand and alongside the bread-winners he takes care to rework on the masterpieces, some forgotten things and keep an overall standard. I'm hopeful.

    Some other niche brands will eventually close down, if they haven't already. A customer can be fooled once or twice, not continuously.

  31. Minette,

    thanks honey, hope you have a great holiday season!

    It's sorta jaw dropping how they manage to commission some things and make them so good and manage to keep the prices SO low. right?

    As consolation, I'll offer you we don't get TJ Maxx here. :-P

  32. Hi Elena,

    Finally caught up with your thought-provoking piece, and thanks for the link to my blog. ;)

    The misinformation you quote from RW about the relative merits of natural and synthetic ingredients is astonishing, and I learnt a lot in your blow-by-blow demolition job.

    For my part, I have just tested the Lidl copy of Chanel No 5, Suddenly Woman 1, which I wondered if they would ever tackle. I am apparently way behind the curve with my discovery, as it has been and gone from stores and now come back again. I don't think it is as faithful an imitation as either Madame Glamour or the BOSS Orange dupe, Diamonds, but if you have it locally, I would love to hear a more informed opinion on it!

  33. Hey Vanessa,

    so good to see you!

    Oh, I simply HAD to include your blog: you're the pioneer in the Lidl fragrances comparisons. Yours is the definitive one I always thought, it needed to be there.

    Glad you found the demolition job informative. I think there is a lot of brandishing of the "great butter we're using" when the bulk is margarine with a drop of real butter for being able to claim such. ;-)

    I have sought to find Suddenly Woman 1 for curiosity's sake, but my local branch doesn't get it. I wonder why! They will bring out a cluster of Xmas editions though, so if they have testers out expect a repeated appearance of yours truly to test these out in detail. And hopefully be able to report back.

    Thanks for visiting and hope everything is going...peachy. :-D [insert inside joke for readers who have read on peachiness here recently> be warned, hilarious content]

  34. Anonymous15:50

    Very enlightening article which I happened to read just hours before going lidl shopping. Well, guess what? The moment I se foot in the store and before buying my groceries I tested the Madame glamour imitation of coco mademoiselle. That was 5 hours ago. It still smells wonderfully on my wrist and on the back of my hand despite having washed my hands twice make matters better, Madame glamour smells better on me than the actual coco mademoiselle. I didn't buy it today but I'm definitely getting this cheap gem next Saturday. what a find! Thank you dear perfumeshrine for sharing your wisdom with your perfume craving (and not so well off anymore) disciples! Two thumbs up!

  35. Anon,

    you're most welcome!

    As the French say, voilà!

  36. It's true that with designer scents one pays for the advertising, but then why are niche perfumes even more expensive?

    1. Sometimes it's a matter of allowing a bigger budget for ingredients and innovation (captive molecules, more daring concepts that need more working out of the formula etc) and sometimes it's just positioning. I'd talk more if I could, naming names, but surely can't.

  37. Anonymous20:46

    Re-reading this I think that there is something a little unfair about this idea of budget vs original. There would be no knock offs without the originals first. The perfumers that created Mademoiselle created a best seller due to their training, expertise and artistic ability. Not to mention the expense involved paying them, their assistants, support staff, test marketing etc. That money has to come from somewhere. Where is the artistry and expertise if you can get a sample analyzed and copy and or tweak it? Of course LIDL can sell it cheaper, Chanel did all the work. Again if it wasnt for the vision that the true professionals have there wouldnt be anything to copy. Would you want a fine copy of a Monet or Rembrandt and say its just as good if not better? There are many copies of many artists out there but the value and credit has to go to the originals. Thats what justifies the price sometimes. They thought of it first.

    1. Absolutely true and you do have a point. I just guess we all wanted more out of Chanel. They have built a myth.

  38. Anonymous13:59

    True. Myth and Mystery sells.


Type your comment in the box, choose the Profile option you prefer from the drop down menu, below text box (Anonymous is fine too!) and hit Publish.
And you're set!

Blog Widget by LinkWithin