Price coming soon
1932 vs Safari
Price coming soon
The scent fingerprint
What brings them together, what sets them apart
How they evolve on the skin
Notes shared by both perfumes.
What are they for?
1932
Safari
Seasons
Spring
Suitable
Very suitable
Summer
Suitable
Suitable
Autumn
Very suitable
Very suitable
Winter
Suitable
Not its territory
Moments
Office
Very suitable
Very suitable
Everyday
Very suitable
Very suitable
Evenings & dates
Suitable
Suitable
Night
Suitable
Not its territory
How is it calculated?
These markers are an editorial estimate calculated automatically from the perfume's real accords and their intensity, following the classic reading of scent families (hesperidics and aromatics shine in summer and at the office, ambers and gourmands in winter and in the evening…). They do not come from user votes and do not replace a test on skin.
Why choose one… or the other?
Why choose 1932
- iris, aldehydes, amber: all materials absent from Safari.
- Markedly more enveloping, carried by amber.
- More versatile according to our calculated profile (8 contexts out of 8, against 6).
- It is 23 years younger (2013 against 1990).
- We have no price recorded at our retailers yet.
Why choose Safari
- Its pyramid opens on narcissus, oakmoss, marigold, nowhere to be found opposite.
- More track record: launched in 1990, it has been worn for 36 years.
- Notes that are uncommon with us (marigold, narcissus): the less conventional of the two.
- No tracked point of sale to date.
- “winter” is not its register, according to the profile we calculate.
The verdict
-
Most enveloping
1932 — signature carried by amber
-
Most versatile
1932 — at ease in 8 contexts out of 8, against 6
-
Most original
Safari — its notes are rarer in our catalogue (marigold, narcissus)
Each trophy applies to a specific use, not in absolute terms.