Aesthetical considerations apart, what about these "new" scents?
Was "reformulation" so drastic?
Are these "new" perfumes so "awful" (as reported by many during past years), or "acceptable", or even "good ones"?
I was able to obtain all perfumes both in vintage and modern versions, and perfectly stored (especially the vintage ones).
So, finally I could perform a side-by-side test with the four "new" male scents produced under "La Collection" line: Rive Gauche - JAZZ - YSL pour Homme - M7 Oud Absolu, and I compared with different "vintage" versions, under strict conditions.
How did they perform?
Let's go and discover it!
(Foreword: in this review I tried to compare accurately 4 different scents, using a great number of old and modern bottles. I tried firmly to be impartial, and without bias. I have no interest in describing ingredients and top and base notes, since you can read tons of reviews all over the Net.
I'm more interested in describing "differences and similarities").
For understanding of various YSL eras and batch codes, see HERE)
![]() |
| "La Collection" line: the front side of the four male scents |
![]() |
| "La Collection" line: the back side. from left: Rive Gauche - JAZZ - YSL pour Homme - M7 OudAbsolu |
![]() |
| "La Collection" line: the bottom of each scent. It's clearly visible the batch code 62Hxxx. Letter "H" means "year 2011" |
and METHODS
---------------------
For convenience only, here you can read and see pictures of "M7" and "M7 Oud Absolu". An identical procedure was followed for other three scents.
All comparisons were made separately, to not to mix various scents and smellings.
All comparisons were made inside a clean, no-windows, odorless room.
All comparisons were made at the same temperature: 20°C / 70 F.
As First step, the "paper strip test" was performed. Each scent was closely sprayed over the paper, and two strips were compared at different times.
![]() |
| Step 1: Paper strip Test |
The Second step was the "skin test". It consists in closely spraying scents separately on my own skin (I prefer back of my hands), and smelling over the hours.
![]() |
| Step 2: Skin Test |
Third and final step was the "clothes" test. Both scents were closely sprayed on two pieces of heavy fabric, and evolution was observed. Heavy fabric "traps" an enormous quantity of molecules (much more than paper) and it is really effective if you want to observe even minimal differences.
![]() |
| Step 3 : Heavy fabric test |
![]() |
| Comparing the new "La Collection" version with the clear bottle in picture (1998-2010) especially the ones produced after year 2000, you will hardly find a difference. |
![]() |
| Comparing boxes. On left: vintage "postmodern" plastic version (1988-1998) on right : "transparent" one (1998-2010) |
"YSL pour Homme" was the second scent to be tested. Also known as "the missing link between Eau Sauvage and Monsieur de Givenchy" (this is probably the best definition), it was launched in 1971, nearly 45 years ago (as for 2015) and it was necessarily reformulated at least a few times. And this is exactly what I found during the test: smelling different samples, I immediately noticed different reformulations.
I tested three bottles: a "Parfums Corp." labelled bottle (year 1988), a "PPR-Gucci" one (year 2005), and the new "La Collection" version (year 2011).
The new "La Collection" (year 2011) is similar, but not identical, to the YSLpH (year 2005) by PPR-Gucci.
But it's completely different from the Parfum Corp. version (year 1988).
The old Parfum Corp. version was incredibly rich, creamy, pleasant, intense, almost "dirty", with a legendary warm and cozy drydown.
The PPR Gucci bottle from 2005 appears to be "sanitized" with much of the "creaminess" removed.
Finally, the "La Collection" version (year 2011) appeared to be slightly watered down, even compared with the year 2005 bottle.
In all three version the only things in common are the topnotes. Citrusy topnotes are very similar each other.
But from this point onwards, things messed up.
The oldest version develops in a marvelous symphony, while the other two ones steer towards an unusual, strange "plastic" drydown.
That's the strange story: if we consider only the two most recent previous ("PPR-Gucci" and "La Collection"), these appear similar and we could say it was a decent reformulation.
So, perfume reviewers were accurate and trustful when saying there was not so much difference ...because these two bottles smell "almost" the same from top to base.
But when we compared it to the older one (Parfum Corp. year 1988), the show changes dramatically: vintage YSLpH is, really, out of this world. It's impossible to compare to modern ones.
Anyway, I don't dare to say the new scent is a bad one. All of all, it is very similar to its previous edition.
But if I have to buy YSLpH, I'd prefer to find an old bottle. Honestly, I wouldn't pay big $$$ for a YSLpH bottle produced after 1990.
I tested Rive Gauche thoroughly and carefully in two version only: the "tin can" and the new "La Collection" cubic bottle.
Are there identical? Well, surprisingly, the answer is no. They are very similar, but no identical.
The "La Collection" version is slightly (I told slightly) sweeter, but you can appreciate the difference only on side-by-side comparison. If you have nothing to compare with, you could hardly tell a difference. That's all.
Both version have a monster sillage and longevity, and there is no trace of watering-down. Both are strong, deep, and intense.
I am really pleased with new "La Collection" Rive Gauche and wholeheartedly recommend it as a scent.
Are the old tin can bottles worth buying? Yes, but only for collection purpose. Perfume smell nearly the same.
| The tin can bottle (2003-2010) |
The fourth and last scent tested was M7 Oud Absolu. I'll not spend many words about M7, the scent that launched the Oud-mania in western world (although not the first western Oud-y scent, since the first mainstream one was the legendary "Balenciaga pour Homme", in 1990). M7 and its "brother" M7 Fresh were two of the most incredible scents ever produced, a complete commercial failure during years, followed by a cult status during (and after) phasing out. Since the original M7 received so many appraisals, the new version rapidly became a favourite target for detractors, slanderers and backbiters.
Well, I tested two versions, a year 2002 bottle (one of the first ones produced) and the new M7 Oud Absolu.
The first thing to say is: you're right, the two perfumes are not identical , they smell different.
M7 and M7 Oud Absolu actually are not the same scent. But this should be obvious, since even their names are different ("M7" and "M7 Oud Absolu", respectively).
The main difference is in drydown. While topnotes are nearly identical, the drydown is quite different. And as you can read, classic M7 sport "Amber", while new M7 Oud Absolu sport "Myrrh".
Yes, there is definitely a difference: M7 Oud Absolu could be considered a M7 "flanker".
However, there's no reason therefore to slander the "La Collection" new scent, since it stand -from very beginning- as a different perfume.
The most interesting thing is that M7 Oud Absolu is a really pleasant scent: in my opinion it is on the same quality level of classic M7. If you like M7, you will hardly dislike M7 Oud Absolu : Myrrh instead of Amber.
Anyway, I personally prefer old, classic M7 because of its very pleasant -and a bit dated- ambery drydown.
Smell the same perfume inside and outside your house, and it could appear different.
Smell the same perfume at different temperatures, and it will not be the same.
Smell the same perfume in different environments, and you will be concerned.
Unfortunately, if you want to seriously evaluate a scent, you should have a "scientific" attitude. Perfumes should be tested under controlled conditions.
Since at least 4 years passed since the launch of the new "La Collection" line, and all heated discussions are now calmed down, it's time to get conclusions.
Frankly, all scents tested are not bad. I found one of them (Rive Gauche) very, very good, worth of buying.
Other two (JAZZ and YSL pour Homme) are adequate, similar to previous versions (but not to older vintage, which I prefer instead).
The last (M7 Oud Absolu) is, practically, a new scent.
In a few words, YSL / L'Oreal did a decent job. Older vintages are probably lost forever, but when compared to some really horrendous reformulations of great classics, the effort has to be considered positive.
similar "comparison" articles:
- FRACAS by Robert Piguet: side-by-side comparison
- Fahrenheit: 10 batch comparison
- Dior Homme: Yesterday and Today
- Dior Homme Intense: 2007-2014
- Terre d'Hermes: 9 different bottles.
- L'Instant de Guerlain Extreme: yesterday and today

-GUY LAROCHE perfumes (here)
-CACHAREL perfumes ( here )
-ROCHAS perfumes (here)


















Have these been reformulated again??? I just purchased a bottle of M7 Oud Absolu and it does not have the black on the bottle... It's all clear glass and still has the same notes and date on the side of the bottle... Still has the same style of cap and shap as the covered in black plastic bottles... I've never had my nose on the other bottle of Oud Absolu to compare the juice but I really enjoy this one... It will be my every day M7 so I don't use my vintage 2003 juice unless it's a special occasion... ^_^ Just wondering if you had heard anything about a change... Wonderful article BTW...
ReplyDeleteIncredibly useful information. Thanks for taking the time and effort to publish this!
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the valuable information. You are right, as a lover of Jazz since the early 1990's I am disappointed mostly by the 2018 clear glass cube version that I bought in January 2020. Earlier this month my 2004 bottle arrived and it is only marginally better than the 2018. My bottle from 1988 arrived today and it is MILES better than the others! This is the Jazz that I fell in love with decades ago! Rich smelling and definitely more notes than the other formulations. It lasts the whole day on me too. Why did I wait so long?
ReplyDelete