Noa by Cacharel Eau de Toilette Fragrance
3.5
1 votes
Are you familiar with this?
Feel free to rate it!
  • Sometimes, I think the simplicity of this perfume is just ill-romantic
  • The problem with like-scented perfumes is consistency
  • I suggest spraying the perfume one at a time and not immersing yourself in it greedily, so you won’t drive the fragrance to a crash too soon
  • I like to spray it every 3 hours or so and I try to catch the mist in open air as opposed to applying it directly upon the skin
  • I recommend this lounge fragrance to undiscriminating noses


    • by jhunie

      TRUSTWORTHY

      followers:22
      follow
      This fragrance adds to the many wonderful things I received for the holidays. Noa by Cacharel is my first and more in-depth introduction to the fragrance house. Actually, I’ve smelt a couple of their testers and I get the notion that they’re generally commercial fragrances. I wonder if this particular bottle is the exact version of the prototype I’ve first been acquainted to many years ago. My first sniff of Noa failed to provoke my “scent sense” – it was too bland and smelt much like white musk or the retained scent of an empty perfume bottle. Now, the fragrance smells fuller, yet still, uninspiring.

      Sometimes, I think the simplicity of this perfume is just ill-romantic. It has light floral tones, a bite of fresh fruitiness and a woody base. It’s a wearable floral fragrance. It smells like rosy soaps to me or fragrant lotions. I’m not very good at describing


      floral notes here, because I’m not fond of flowery scents. But this smells a lot like weddings – the fresh luminous scent of flowers – maybe stephanotis, or something on that scale. It probably would make a good linen fragrance as well. If I spray a significant amount, the floral notes impart a bit of ylang-ylang similar to Elizabeth arden’s breezy perfumes.

      I was waiting to arrive at the base notes of the perfume until the soft sandalwood notes kept me from losing my usually oblivious attention to minimalistic fragrances. I noted something earthy hiding in there, which made me rethink whether it was all purely woody notes. Well it turned out to be coffee. Maybe, part of what makes this scent linear and uncomplicated is the coffee, which to me, is a good neutralizer. The perfume loses its breezy floral notes after a while and sets on a dry base. So ...


      • I was a bit bummed by the lack of dewy woody notes in this perfume.

        Most clean scents tend to fall down the opposite side and go against themselves. What once smelt comfortably nice and clean becomes inversely odorous. The problem with like-scented perfumes is consistency. You know the smell of bath soap warmed up by sweats, it’s that sort of self-deprecating tendency which I generally dislike about clean fragrances. And it’s probably the reason why I think of such fragrances as “flavor of the week”….then eventually gets reduced to – the moment, only. This perfume gives me that feeling; it gets worse as the deep woody notes mingle longer with my body. I suggest spraying the perfume one at a time and not immersing yourself in it greedily, so you won’t drive the fragrance to a crash too soon. I like to spray it every 3 hours or so and I

        try to catch the mist in open air as opposed to applying it directly upon the skin. The idea of putting it on my hair crossed my mind, but I just couldn’t stand the caffeinated part of the fragrance.

        The fragrance lasts nowhere near 6 hours on me, it left no discernible sillage. Contrary to the simplicity of this woody floral, the Noa flacon is very ornate. I like the glass bottle. It deserves to be described duly: the bottle takes the shape of a ball – and within that ball – is another ball. I don’t know if the smaller ball infuses pearl essence to the notes, regardless, it seems there to emulate pearl. I recommend this lounge fragrance to undiscriminating noses. Apart from the bottle, which is a piece of novelty, I’m afraid there are plenty other fairly-priced scents similar to this one. Hence, I probably won’t buy this on a whim.




    • Don't Be Nice. Be Helpful.

    The review was published as it's written by reviewer in December, 2010. The reviewer certified that no compensation was received from the reviewed item producer, trademark owner or any other institution, related with the item reviewed. The site is not responsible for the mistakes made. 5617121360980831/k2311a1217/12.17.10
    Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms & Conditions
    Privacy Policy