.jpg)
This is the official presentation by Chanel of their latest fragrant offering: a Fresh Body Cream to layer with any of the Les Exclusifs fragrances in the Chanel perfumes line. [Available right now on their US site; It's interesting to note the French appellation bypasses the pitfall of calling it Crème fraîche, i.e. culinary "fresh cream". Or perhaps the need for "freshness" in body cosmetics is only necessary for Anglo-Saxon speaking audiences? At any rate, an interesting tidbit observed here, don't you agree?]
The description makes me feel it's a neutral enough body cream ~and thus not particularly scented enough~ to go well with just any of the diverse fragrances in the Chanel boutique line. At 130$ a pop for 150 gr., it's a posh option for layering some moisture and lipids on the epidermis to extend your perfume making it last longer.
Specialized body creams to anchor scent in posh brand exclusive-boutique fragrance lines might become a trend: See last season's Guerlain Delice de Peau reviewed here.
Related reading on Perfume Shrine: the newest fragrance by Chanel, Coco Noir and Chanel news & reviews
.jpg)
Guerlain has a similar product, so I hear, designed to enhance its perfumes. Is there a trend happening?
ReplyDeleteI once heard a doctor advise people to 'buy the cheapest moisturiser that works for you', which in my case means I can get away with less than a tenth of the cost of this offering from Chanel!
I, also, pay rather less for moisturiser - I think it's about $6 for a litre of sorbelene... and I can mix any of my scents in with it.
ReplyDeleteOne idea I got somewhere is you buy the super expensive cream in its pretty pot once, and then just refill from your supermarket pump pack -
Chanel would, of course, sell such a thing. Why? Because its perfumes NEED it. For such expensive jus, their longevity stinks. That is true even for Les Exclusives. I once had some Bois des Iles. It smelled heavenly. Imagine my disappointment when the scent disappeared after 10 minutes.
ReplyDeletefresh as opposed, say, to stale?
ReplyDeletenow, if it were creme fraiche, i might like this! soft and lickable!
cheers,
minette
the only two lines I would pay this kind of money for are Amouage and Malle beurres. Amouage bath and body leave an amazing amount of scent on the skin. Malle as well (though it doesn't last as long, it's still good for 4-5 hours of heavy duty scent).
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I wear the generic version of Cetaphil. And happily.
AMC,
ReplyDeleteexactly. Seems like a trend when a second one comes along. The Guerlain was nice enough, I have to admit, if not very scented (though it did have a distinct scent) judging by my testing. I haven't tested this one yet, but I'm not jumping through hoops to do so either.
Moisturizer is really a gimmick in scientific terms, come to think of it: you can't push moisture into the skin, you can only use an occlusive agent to trap existing moisture within. And emollients to make the surface more polished and slippery, which gives the illusion of being moisturized. So paying premium is rather wasted, as you wisely point out. I save my money for things that do work, personally. ;-)
C,
ReplyDeleteyup. Like I pointed out above, it's mostly a gimmick.
If you like the packaging of something specific, yeah, why not, for personal use.
Rednails,
ReplyDeletethis is a valid complaint with the Exclusifs, you know, thanks for bring it here. I find Coromandel lasts well as does 31 RC but the rest are fleeting, even on my pretty average skin (which says a lot about most people's expectations being met or not).
I find the subsequent watering down of CdR, BdI and No22 as opposed to their older, vintage versions a shame...
J,
ReplyDeletetee hee!! :-D
Yeah, creme fraiche is a better option. More imagination-inspiring for other kind of games too!
Musette,
ReplyDeleteyou have a perfect point!
Amouage is pure luxury in general (though I'm not that familiar with their body products) and as for the Malle beurres they're exquisite. Worth every cent! It's tempting to use only the beurre in lieu of perfume. A sign of great quality and infusion of essence in the product.
How sneeky $$$$$$$$$$ :)
ReplyDeleteM,
ReplyDeleteno problem with deserved $$$$$$$ but when it's all thin air....hmmmm.....
Sheeoooot, I'm about as likely to spend vast amounts of my money for a scentless body cream in a fancy jar as I am to use under make-up base to hold up my foundation. Same complaint here about the many perfumes now a-days that are far too fleeting, that now the companies have this grand new idea to have us buyers buying unnecessary products to help the first product do its job. I will stick with my cheap coconut oil and lotions, thank you very much. And bring back oakmoss!
ReplyDeleteS,
ReplyDeletewell, it might be argued that a primer (pre-makeup base) can actually produce some worthwhile visible results sometimes like that speckles of gold thingie by Guerlain for example (though a good foundation should be able to work without one!), while a scented $$$ cream can be substituted with non scented $ cream with as much aplomb.
As you say, one expects a posh perfume to last satisfactorily in the first place without need for anchoring by supporters. (Of course that doesn't equate sillage in my mind; for instance many JCE scents are very tenacious if you think about it but they're never invasive in their projection ~that's a deliberate style)
As to oakmoss, for those reading us and not being in the loop exactly, it can still be used (and is, actually) in reduced quantities in modern/current perfumes as per the IFRA directives, it's just that oakmoss-heavy chypres had fallen off the trend bandwagon long ago before the restrictions gave them the final kiss off. I blame that more than anything.