Review of Rouge by aad de gids

(2017) this is a fantastic perfume. it has all the varsaillean hauteté as it has regal lineage. narcissus, rose, jasmine and freesia strive to be at forefront. it has the same force of immediacy as giorgio and, strangely bc of the name: girogio beverly hills "red". amber and iris lend it further body, not that it needed any more. it is a pity that the perfume is discontinued and this, after having been there for so long. well i still have a flacon with over half of its content. all the "fireworks" on the package and in the design of the bottle deliver to their promise. now this is a perfume ! (2025) as this is primarily a Flower Perfume. for hours on end the separate flowers keep flying around my head. I must have bought this perfume ca 2010. the perfume as it now is I remember exactly from what it then was. what it is you remember is of course disputable (for those who revel in that métier endlessly). do you remember an Idea of the perfume? a photorealistic copy? I always remember feelings. it is a heady perfume. I would say it is primarily a Rose perfume but that can be bc I am a Rose person and the Rose is domineering. but this perfume makes me reminesce toward other specific Rose perfumes. I would say, those perfumes in which the Rose comes forward as Pot Pourri. Giorgio Beverly Hills Red. Vero.Kern Rozy. somewhat like Coco Mademoiselle. Hayari Amour Elégant. all those Rose Perfumes which pulverize her petals with Encens. Sisley's Izia. well, I have made my point clear and the effect is stunning. Narcissus, Lily of the Valley, Rose, Orchid, Jasmine, Freesia, Iris. a Plethora of Flowers. an Abundancy of a sweltheringly heady, hefty, intoxicating perfume. all the other Classisist perfumes from Rancé 1795 are also to die for. purely and strongly and ingenuous feminine perfumes.