Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Diptyque Do Son



There's something about Diptyque perfumes that makes so many of them the benchmark for their respective genres. Tam Dao is the essence of sandalwood and Philosykos is considered the ultimate fig scent. They are like perfect little representations of an idea, neatly wrapped, easy to wear and very straight-laced. It's not that Diptyque never went off the beaten track- after all, there are L'Eau Trois and Eau d'Elide, but neither one of them fared well. What I'm trying to say is that it's no wonder that Diptyque managed to take the great man-eater tuberose and civilize it by creating  Do Son.

I don't think I've ever come across such a clean and well-behaving tuberose that still manages to retain its tropical lush core and bloom spectacularly in the heat. White flower notes in general and tuberose in particular never make a real "dry" perfume (even when paired with ample of spice and woods, like in Serge Lutens' Cedre). But Do Son comes amazingly close to that idea through a composition of crisp green leaves that border on bitter and something that can only be called a musky iris (or maybe an iris-like musk?).

Do Son is east to wear, probably because it lacks both the Audrey II characteristics found in some of its relatives (Fracas, Carnal Flower, Datura Noir) and the weird pairings of my personal favorites- Anya McCoy's tuberose and chocolate truffle of Starflower, Uncle Serge's magnificent Tubereuse Criminelle, Parfumerie Generale Tubereuse Couture and the amazing Tubereuse 3 from Histoires de Parfums. This is both Do Son's strength and greatest weakness. It's nice. It has a good chance appealing to non-tuberose people and converting them to the dark side. But as fond of it as I am, I just can't see a reason for me to get a full bottle when I can wear something a lot more interesting.

Do Son ($88, 1.7oz EDT) and the other Diptyque perfumes can be found at Luckyscent, Aedes, BeautyHabit and also Saks and Barneys.

photos: myvintagevogue.com

2 comments:

  1. Do Son represents one of the reasons I used to think I wasn't meant to go along with floral scents, and should just dive into smoldering woody-oriental pleasures with Serge or indulge in leathery classics.
    After few years of sniffing and testing I've learnt that I actually am THE floral lover. Serge's scents receded to the back of the shelf, replaced by amazing bouquets of flowers.
    I just love the lush kind, I suppose, while the prim, watery (I'll also call it screechy) floral genre does really not do well on my skin.
    From Pleasures to Do Son, I find these fragrances very difficult to wear, and not a very good introduction to a genre. But I know Do Son is usually tagged as a good "introductory" tuberose, so what do I know?
    I'll continue to convert friends and relatives to carnal flower, though.
    Or to l'amoureuse.
    Or to beyond love.
    Or to fracas.
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love florals, bring them on.
    I always hoped when I grew up I'd wear dresses like this, but not so far...tho there's still time

    ReplyDelete

I love comments and appreciate the time you take to connect with me, but please do not insert links to your blog or store. Those will be deleted. The comment feature is not intended to provide an advertising venue for your blog or your commercial site.

See Also

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Like