Dior Homme, Dior Homme Intense, and other stories.... (guest post)

Dear Sirs, a few years ago, during the 2000s, I had a brief stint in the cosmetic industry as a chemist. Although I am not particularly fond of those years, I am nonetheless entertained in knowing all debates about "reformulations", analyzing batch-by-batch, month-by-month, picture-by-picture. 
I especially enjoyed the ones regarding to Dior Homme, Dior Homme Intense, Dior Homme Parfum, and generically, all Dior perfumes and cosmetics. And when Andre from "Raiders" pointed out another probable reformulation occurring at the beginning of 2015, I decided to write this short note. Why? Because there is basically a very quick way to understand if a "reformulation" happened. 

Actually, all Dior products silently advice you when a "reformulation" occurred: you simply have to check "the Number" written on the box, i.e. the number appearing on the corner of the box referring to the composition of the scent/cosmetic: when this number changes, it means the scent/cosmetic composition consequently changed: so, you know a reformulation occurred.  
Here's a picture describing how to find the Number (Dior Homme Intense)

And here is a box of Dior Homme:

But what is exactly this Number? We need a few steps backwards....  
During year 2003, the European Commission issued the 2003/14/EC Directive, about the mandatory labeling of the "allergens" on the box of all European-marketed scents and cosmetics, to be implemented within two years (i.e. year 2005, at latest). 
Furthermore, one of the rules involved the "order of appearance" of each allergen, which had to be proportionate to its amount. For example: if you read on the box: "eugenol-linalool-citral", it means eugenol is present in a greater concentration than linalool; and linalool is present at a greater concentration than citral, and so on.

Since 2004-2005, Dior wrote this mandatory list on all perfumes, adding the Number: obviously it is a different number for each type of scent (EdT, EdP, Parfum, Cologne, Aftershave, Soaps, Body creams etc, have a different number, since the "composition" is different) 
But when you read a different Number in the same product (for eample, EdT during different years), it means the "composition" inside the bottle changed, and a reformulation occurred. You could see differences in the listing, too. 

Beware: a changing in Number/Formula means the composition changed; but this does NOT automatically mean the "smelling" changed, too: actually it could be possible having a change in the formula, leaving the smell unaltered, and vice versa (a bit unlikely, however...)

Back to the original question, Andre was right: at the end of 2014/ beginning of 2015 a reformulation occurred, and the Number changed, and you can smell the subtle difference.

Please note: this method is suitable for any Dior product. You could apply it on Eau Sauvage, Fahrenheit, Poison, J'adore, etc., and any cosmetic produced after 2005. 
                                                                           (Alberto Converano)

------------

"In my opinion, there was another reformulation at the end of 2014/early in 2015. Dior Homme (DH, EdT) has now a stronger opening, more similar to Dior Homme Intense. On the contrary, Dior Homme Intense (DHI, EdP) seems much more powdery, and the 'lipstick' tone appears more pronounced. Longevity and projection are unaltered. Both still very good in my opinion, but clearly reformulated again."                                 (Andre)             

------------------------

And now a few pictures with the Numbers /Formulae (use it as a reference):

Dior Homme EdT

original (2005-2010) : formula 01704/A (or 01792/A)

2010-2014 :  formula 05434/A

2015- current:   formula 08853/A

Dior HOMME, early bottle,
batch 5L01, formula 1704/A

A rare alternate early version, listing Benzophenone
(an UV-rays blocker), formula 01792/A 

DIOR HOMME 
differences between 2008 and 2013

DIOR HOMME
differences between 2014 and 2015

Dior Homme, 0Z06 =   2010, december.
Nr. 05434/A

Dior Homme, 1U02 =   2011, august.
Nr. 05434/A

-----------------------

Dior Homme Intense EdP:

original (2007-2010):  formula 03214/A

2011-2014:  formula 05443/A

2015- current: formula 08666/A

Dior Homme Intense, the first bottle, year 2007
Formula N° 03214/A

Dior Homme Intense, batch 1R02 = 2011, april
Formula N° 05443/A 

Dior Homme Intense , batch 3X01, year 2013
Formula 05443/A

Dior Homme Intense, batch 5W01 = year 2015
formula N° 08666/A

Read More

DIOR HOMME INTENSE 2007-2013 : 9 BATCHES BlindTest.

(UPDATE: in this article you will read the "years 2007-2013" review: if you are interested in the "year 2014" updated review, then go HERE )

Dior Homme Intense is not a perfume, it's a rollercoaster ride. After the mid-year 2011 reformulation, we saw a U-turn back to origins, during year 2013. A pleasant news, since in 2013 it appeared exactly as in 2007. That's all right? Unfortunately not.
Suddenly, during last months of 2013, the scent appeared to be reformulated again, with a change in color, less intense, less "ambery", and almost "transparent". Another change in formula?
Let's go and see what happened.
(about batch numbers, you can read here: "how to recognize Christian Dior perfumes")
For this blind test we got nine different batches: in some case samples are bottles already used during previous test  ( here ), plus new bottles, and a 1ml sample, mostly provided by generous friends.

Here is the complete list of "players" (batch number):
7H01
8V01
9Y02
0V01
2N01
2U01 ( it's a 1ml sample)
3V01
3X02
3Y01

A very early bottle produced in 2007 (left, batch 7H01),
confronting a year 2008 bottle.
First bottles missed the word "vaporisateur" on the front side.

Four "Vintage" bottles.
All bottles sport the same "doors design" on the front of the box.

a small sample batched 2U01 = July 2012

        

Confronting old and new design:

9Y02 = November 2009

3V01 = August 2013

8V01 = August 2008
2N01 = January 2012

Dior Homme Intense (batch 3X02, on left),
confronting with a DH bottle (on right)
note the color, very light and pale

DH (left) batch 3R01, DHI (right) batch 3X02

again, note the color, very light and pale

DHI on left, DH on right

DHI latest bottle available, 3Y01= November 2013

RESULTS: 

Batches from 2007 to 2010 are really identical each other, with a crisp and beautiful vanilla-iris-chocolate accord, along with the best DHI tradition.

Batches 2N01 and 2U01 are different from others: the chocolate seems less solid, so the iris take the advantage. Thes batches appears more Iris-centered. It's a paradox: if you love mainly the Iris note, you should seek year 2012 batches. Rarely I found a strongest Iris note. However, it's still DHI, although reformulated: no doubt. It could be considered almost a DHI "flanker".

Year 2013:  this is the pivotal point. The strangest thing is that.... all three batches smell the same, and all three are pretty similar, if not identical, to the "Vintage" ones. Nonetheless, if you look at the juice of the last two batches (3X02 and 3Y01), it's appear almost "transparent".  Apparently, another reformulation occurred during last months of year 2013, but it seems not to have changed -luckily- the smell. Until now. 

CONCLUSION:

All "year 2013" DHI batches are solid. If you like DHI, buy any year 2013 batch: juice color apart, you will be not disappointed. 

But the question is : how long? It seems Dior is going on a rollercoaster ride, in an attempt to preserve DHI integrity.

I would add a personal anecdote: some time ago, I smelled two old bottles of "Eau Sauvage" by Christian Dior, dated, respectively, mid Seventies and Nineties.Well, smell was identical. During good, old times -after an almost 15 years span- perfumes were still identical. Of course, reformulations occurred in old ages, too; but perfumes remained the same.

Now, we have to test batches every 3-4 months to verify "reformulations". It's pure absurdity.

Two years ago DHI formula changed; today DHI color changes ...and tomorrow?

I'm glad to see Dior to have maintained intact DHI until now, but, I repeat: how long? 

Read More