Michael Kors Michael

In one of their harshest reviews, Perfumes: The Guide declares Michael Kors Michael to be “one of the worst ever”. This is why the allegedly “hair-singeing” Michael has sat in my little plastic baggy of samples, unreviewed, for a good year now. Having smelled Michael first from the safety of paper strips, and now on skin, I can safely say that I have no idea whatsoever what Turin and Sanchez were on about. Michael is a perfectly pleasant tuberose fragrance, a more floral and less aquatic version of the original Marc Jacobs perfume. Kim Kardashian is reportedly a Michael lover, and its influence is quite obvious in the tuberose fragrance that she released last year.

Oh, y’all will be happy to know that I no longer feel that Kim Kardashian is destroying feminism. These days I see her as something of a bastion of racial and body type diversity in an industry where such diversity is sorely lacking. If we must have trashy reality TV stars, let them at least expand our astoundingly narrow definition of beauty.

14 thoughts on “Michael Kors Michael

  1. I avoided this one entirely based on the Sanchez review, until I read that Chandler Burr finds it remarkable, then I figured it was at least worth smelling at Sephora. However, on a smelling strip, it had a banana top note, the same banana-ness I get from the top notes of Daisy, but even more so. I just can’t get on board with banana in my perfume, but I wouldn’t say it was all that “hair-singeing” either.

      1. There are a few other reviews that had the same effect on me — I assumed Spiriteuese Double Vanille must be really gross, but it’s not at all. I came to the conclusion, based on other reviews, that Turin likes his vanilla pretty sweet ‘n’ trashy, and SDV is not.

      2. Turin’s tastes are all over the place. That’s why I tend to rely on MUA more than PTG- however experienced Turin and Sanchez may be, they’re still only two people. And like Dee said, their subjective preferences are bound to influence a review.

  2. The Guide is my first resource when thinking about a new perfume, however, these days I take LT & TS reviews with a grain of salt. They’re damned funny; but between anosmia, hypernosmia, and skin chemistry, even quality and beauty are partly subjective (no matter how good your nose is).

    MKM doesn’t interest me, mostly because others in the line haven’t interested me either.

    Now that’s a topic: Perfumes that don’t inspire you to want to smell other perfumes. I present to you… Givenchy Very Irresistible!

    1. Michael Kors definitely doesn’t bring much to the table in terms of fragrance. I think you’re on to something with that theory! No wonder so many girls embrace those types of fragrances as their signature- after smelling something like VI, I would be afraid to try anything else!

    2. “Perfumes that don’t inspire you to want to smell other perfumes” – sputter! That was truly funny, Dee…

      P:TG is pretty upfront about the authors’ personal preferences influencing their reviews. LT gets truly POed when the notes include “gardenia” and there isn’t any, and they both hate synthetic tuberose (Amarige and Michael). They both hate rose soliflores and woody ambers, and have a taste for the shocking or unusual. I think some of the perfumes I have hated most have been ones LT has praised to the skies (100% Love comes to mind, and Insolence edp, dear God, Kill.Me.Now). Only 3 of my favorites made it to the 5-star list (SL La Myrrhe, No.5 parfum, and Le Temps d’une Fete).

      You’re absolutely right about taking them with a grain of salt – these days I remember the biases before taking their reviews as gospel. I strongly suspect that they already shared similar tastes before LT asked TS to help him with the book, anyway.

  3. Oh, and I rather liked MK Michael. I have a small 15ml bottle of edp… that I *never* wear because I have fallen in love with other tuberoses. I can now tell the difference between the natural stuff and synthetic, after all that Tuberose Testing I was doing earlier in the year. However, the synth doesn’t really, you know, bother me. I would still rather wear my B&BW Velvet Tuberose than Michael, though, if the truth be told.

    1. Yes, I wouldn’t say that there is anything particularly special or distinctive about Michael, I just didn’t see it as the arrival of the Four Horsemen or the first sign of the apocalypse or anything like that. The Velvet Tuberose bottle is much more attractive, too.

  4. I love MK. It´s on my wish list! Kim told in an interview that MK is her mother signature fragrance, and then became hers and her sister Kourtney! She is lauching a new fragrance in february, we´ll how that goes. She´s obviously a Mk lover, but I think her fragrance it´s more overpowdering than Michael´s. I prefer Michael because it´s more light, less intense, but still very intense if u know what I mean. Kim´s fragrance is good, not original at all, but you have to use carefully, it´s definetly not a day scent for me! Im glad u gave Michael another chance heheh!

Leave a Reply to deeHowe Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.