Kitchen herbs with a musky finish
Fresh for a few seconds at the beginning, but then quickly very herbal, bitter, and slightly spicy. Green pepper is noticeable to me, but it quickly turns into a mixture of Maggi seasoning and dried thyme. I cannot detect any aquatic notes here. The herbal, cooling quality could be interpreted as metallic, but Dawn Whispers by L'Entropiste is significantly (!) more metallic on me. After about two hours, the fragrance is significantly tarter, but now also has a slightly sweeter note. The sweet, musky, vanilla aspect takes over as it develops and is clearly in the foreground by the evening, still easily recognizable. Initially, the development reminds me of 7 by Sora Dora, moving towards Silver Musk by Nasomatto towards the end, but maintaining this spicy thyme undertone throughout. The longevity is good at over 9 hours, while the projection and sillage are rather moderate on me. Super Nova is often compared to Ganymede by Marc-Antoine Barrois. I also had a sample of that, which I tested at the same time on my other forearm. Here is the comparison: Super Nova is darker, spicier, and more intense on me than Ganymede (Ganymede starts fresher with a mandarin note and then shows more saffron and fewer culinary herbs and Maggi seasoning). Overall, Ganymede is a bit fresher, airier, and brighter. Especially in the mid-notes, however, both scents are very similar (like two identical melodies, but Super Nova played in a minor key and Ganymede in a major key). While Ganymede appeals to me a bit more due to its freshness and airiness, Super Nova clearly wins in longevity (Ganymede is barely detectable after 9 hours), and the sillage and projection are also lower with Ganymede than with Super Nova. However, neither of them is really my cup of tea.
what is wrong with you people comparing this one to worthless ganymede that smells way too different, can you try looking at anything except top notes maybe? Calling them "identical melodies in minor/major" while listing completely opposite notes is pure cognitive dissonance. One is a glossy leather jacket, the other is an icy space alloy. Train your nose beyond fragrantica top notes.
Thanks so much for the message. I just happened to have both on hand as samples; I saw that they’re often compared to each other, so I thought I’d give it a try too. I noticed that the scent notes are completely different, but to be honest: I don’t really pay attention to scent notes. What matters is what I smell. And yes, I’m still very new to the world of perfumes, and my nose might not be fully trained yet—maybe someday I’ll actually be able to detect significant differences between the two. But first of all, a trained nose isn’t a requirement for writing reviews here; second, I can only describe what I’m actually smelling right now, not what I might smell someday; and third, every fragrance reacts differently on every skin type, and I’m not the only one who smells similarities here (besides, I did smell differences and pointed them out). I think it’s great that your nose is more trained than mine and you’re better able to detect more differences, but I’m leaving the review as is, will continue testing other perfumes, and will eventually take the samples of Ganymede and Super Nova again and test them once more. And if I smell something different then, I’ll be happy to update my review and adjust my rating.
Then keep it as an impression, not an analysis. Calling Ganymede and Super Nova "the same melody in major and minor" is a claim about compositional similarity, not merely a description of how they smell to you. Ganymede centers on a mineral, almost metallic leather accord. Super Nova takes its mineral and metallic character in a more ozonic, gunpowder-heavy direction, with green pepper and oud. They can occupy a similar cold, synthetic- mineral space without being compositionally interchangeable. If they smell alike to you, that's a valid personal impression. But "I'm a beginner, I just smell things" doesn't defend the comparison. It changes the standard by which you want it judged. You can describe how a fragrance strikes you, or make a claim about how two compositions relate. Those are two different things.
I think that, both on a community platform like this and within the context of my review itself, it is abundantly clear that this is a personal impression based on my own experience—not an objective, technical analysis. Describing a scent using a metaphor like 'major and minor' captures an associative sensory experience, not a claim about identical formulas. Therefore, I won't be changing the review, but if there was any ambiguity, I hope this clears it up.
You're free to keep your review unchanged. But presenting subjectivity as a blanket defense against criticism is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the substance of an argument. You explicitly acknowledged that your understanding of these fragrances may change with experience, so treating your current impression as beyond meaningful scrutiny is hardly consistent with that position. Nobody is questioning your right to have an opinion. The question is whether that opinion is well founded, and repeating that it's subjective doesn't make it any more so. If you're satisfied with your assessment, leave it at that. There's no need to dress it up as a clarification
