Chanel N°22

Review: Vintage Chanel N°22 EDT (Late 2000s Formulation) I am revisiting my vintage sample of Chanel N°22 Eau de Toilette from the late 2000s, and I am in complete awe. What strikes me first is how remarkably "clean" it is. There is nothing animalic here—none of the heavy, real faunal secretions that used to anchor historical base notes. At first spray, I’m amazed by its haunting familiarity. It immediately channels N°5, which then morphs into a spicy Coco creation, fronted by a prominent, buttery tuberose while a supporting cast of white flowers, sways to the breeze in the background. Because of this juxtaposition—warm spice and living flora meeting cold, soapy aldehydes—I am strongly reminded of Elizabeth Taylor’s blockbuster White Diamonds. However, N°22 lacks WD's earthbound, loamy elements. The opening here isn't nearly as loud; it is infinitely smoother, rounder, and softer. Yet, it shares that same genius architecture: a cold, balsamic background contrasted against the absolute warmth of the florals. As it develops, the initial chill gives way to the full, warm bloom of the flowers. It becomes intensely sweet, boozy, shampoo and lotion-like all at once. In fact, it evolves into a remarkably warm, solar, dare I say—tropical scent. It evokes a sort of "French Tahitian vibe," dripping with vanilla and creamy textures. I’ve been hunting for authentic monoï oils lately, but wearing this, I feel like a very wealthy bitch on vacation. Picture me on a breezy yacht docked somewhere sunny and exotic. Don't bother me; I'm too busy getting my goddess suntan just right, surrounded by an abundance of tiaré flowers. ✨😏 The dry-down gets even better, projecting beautifully off a base that l have specially prepared for a more lasting pleasure trip: that is the work of a luxurious feeling body créme adulterated with oakmoss and bergamot, all overlaid with a light spritz of N°19 Poudré. I believe l smell like a luxurious powder puff. At this stage, it adopts a striking similarity to Prada’s Infusion d'Iris Absolue. The tonka bean in the juice gives it a gorgeous, nutty quality, and the chemistry of this entire combination creates a distinct, unmistakable coconut cream illusion. I feel sweet, honeyed, and warm all over. What is happening? Have I been transported to Haiti? And in other instances with the incense note, I'm transported to a scared Indian temple instead with garlands of freshly laid, fragrant flowers in every direction. I am utterly floored. And the best part? I don't have to run out and buy monoï oil anymore. At least not yet! If you own these fragrances, this olfactory journey is absolutely not to be missed. Full ritual for this fragrant trip: 1. BREEZE Organic Shea & mango body butter by eScents (with extracts of bergamot, oakmoss, chamomile and calendula flowers) applied to the left wrist. 2. 1 spray of Chanel No 19 Poudré EdP 3. 1 spray of No 22 right on top. 4. 1 spray of No 22 on the bare skin of my right wrist for direct comparison.

No 22 is a beautiful fragrance wherein aldehydes and iris work their magic alongside a bouquet of white flowers and a deliciously creamy vanilla. Chanel’s DNA is self-evident throughout. Pure magic at a price. I love it.

(Review of an EdC concentration c. late 1970s) The EdC, extrait de parfum, EdP, Les Exclusifs EdT, vintage, new - doesn’t matter, N°22 is and has always been an easy love for me. This vintage EdC I lucked into though holds a particularly special place in my heart precisely for the reason an educated nose can tell immediately that it’s an old vintage: Chanel let the jasmine in this formulation maintain its animalic musky note loud, clear, and proud rather it being neutered as it is in newer formulations. This isn’t civet, nor is it musks, its jasmine. Did Chanel shove some musks into it? Yes, I’m sure they did to some degree, but the blend is so careful and balanced that you honestly can’t tell it to be true that there is jasmine plus musks rather than simply a naturally musky jasmine. What’s more is that this registers as a true abstract floral, as it was intended to be with its mandate of a counterpart to N°5. Rather than sparkling aldehydes upon application they are truly chalk-white powdery in smell, texture, and color, and the cloud they create is a cumulus that surrounds you. The muguet, rose, ylang-ylang, and that gorgeous jasmine, seamlessly exist, the jasmine being the only obviously identifiable floral, rather than the more literal floral presentations of new formulations; the result is not muguet plus rose plus ylang-ylang plus jasmine, but a rich, supple, gentle, dimly lit, fleshy, woody, floral bouquet. While (old) N°5 was always bright, lively and energetic yellow and white floral, N°22 is relaxed and calm, creamier and unctuous, satin florals. A diffusive and unsweetened earthy vanilla and meditative woody vetiver finish off the perfume in the dry down and skin scent that makes me want to curl up on a blanket with a big grin on my face. Lovely, lovely stuff. It’s always a treat to wear N°22.

Opens as a pretty floral and in 2026 is perfectly pleasant initially. I didn't recognize it as 22 to be honest. After 30 minutes it resolved to a powdery base far more in keeping with the 22 I remember from 'back in the day'. 22 was historically last on my list of 19, 5, Coco, 22, being the 4 Chanel fragrances readily available in the early 90s. Its base is much as I remember.

My recently purchased 80's decant burst my bubble of the idyllic memory I have of sampling Chanel No. 22 at the perfume counter as a middle school girl, and how I believed it must be the most exhilarating fragrance ever created. Wearing it now, I think it was maybe because I hadn't experienced many fragrances yet to arrive at such a strong opinion. This scent feels HEAVY and loaded with sooty chimney ash that pull the aldehydes way down and almost out of sight for me. I've given her a chance multiple times and was actually uncomfortable running errands in it today because I felt it smelled a little bit like a public toilet after dry down. When my husband sniffed my wrist he wrinkled his nose and that told me my nose was not wrong.

Just got my hand on a brand new vintage EDC bottle recently so I just put in my review for those interested. The EDC smells just like the vintage EDT in white plastic refillable spray, just thinned out a lot, smells much less complex and focuses mainly on the vanilla & aldehydes. Overall it gives out a smooth and less edgy wearing experience. Nice to wear but doesn't need to go out of your way to get if you've already own the vintage EDT. Sillage & longevity are not as intense as the EDT but can easily hit the 8hrs mark.

In my review below I forgot to add that when someone asks me what is my favorite version of #5 I say... #22!!

Ahhh #22... I knew about #22 for a long time, as the one that was more "rare" than #5 or #19. I also learned that nowadays it's no longer hard to find as it has been moved to the Exclusifs line in the 21st century (I remember #22 as the one hard to find when I was a child and a young teen). Back in September 2025 I was reintroduced to Chanel thanks to a friend of mine who provided me with vintage samples of #22 and Chance original. #22 took my breath away... Aldehydic perfection with a perfect touch of incense. I knew I had to research it more. Now I own various "treasures" of Chanel #22. You name it - I got it. 1950s parfum with a stopper? I got it. Little 6ml parfum purse spray? Got it, unopened wrapped and sealed in it's original box. Teeny 4 ml 1990s parfum? Also got it. Les Exclusifs EdT and EdP? Got that also. Different eras represent a bit of a different variation of #22. The parfum from 1950s smells like the most magnificent vintage perfume. It smells like the time had dropped. Beautiful orange blossom+ aldehydes+tuberose and some woody incense. #22 from the 80s or 90s smells of strong floral + aldehydes + incense. So beautiful. The most recent EdP smells like the finest milled... soap. I absolutely LOVE soapy scents. When anyone states a perfume smells "too soapy" - I am all in. I absolutely love the contemporary #22 for it's soapiness. I couldn't tell You if I prefer the oldest version I have or the newest. I wear all of them depending on my mood. I absolutely adore that the ones from decades ago, even the 1990s versions have that perfect incense note. I don't know why in it's official notes the vintage versions don't include the incense note. It's not a churchy, incensy perfume like say 31 Rue Cambon (reminds me of a catholic cathedral, absolutely love 31 RC) or Comme des Garcons Avignon BUT the incense note in the vintage #22 is as clear as the day. For women that love floral freshies like Chance Eau Tendre and nothing else I wouldn't recommend it. But for people who love the finest of vintage fragrances it is an absolute must. It's one of my all time favorites and I cannot tell You which version is best as I love them each for which each represents.

I see very little similarity between No 22 & No 5 in vintage form. For the reformulated No 5 version (happened in the early 2000s), in order the make it more appealing to the masses, they dial up the vanilla & ylang right from the beginning and throughout the scent which makes No 5 smells somewhat similar to No 22, especially No 5 parfum. Vintage No 22 is an ethereal powdery, metallic, sweet, woody, slightly incensy bouquet led by iris, ylang and lily, beautiful, smooth and still very relevant with today fragrance taste while Vintage No 5 is peppery, salty, spicy, sweaty and animalic. Vintage No 22 has much better performance on my skin in compare to Vintage No 5. *Review for the vintage white refillable spray EDT

My favourite scent from Chanel, hands down. At first sniff, my thoughts flew to a hundred year old Orthodox Church, brimming with the smell of incense, burning candles and old building (weird smell to like, but hey). Then I read the notes and I just can't believe a white floral would actually smell like this. Highly impressed.

On the Chanel website, it describes N°22 as “a light variation of the legendary N°5 fragrance.” Maybe this is in reference to the legend of it being presented at the same time as 5, but I think this confuses people. This is NOT N°5. The only thing they really share is their genre, as aldehyde-florals. Though, yes, if you love 5, mostly likely you will love 22. Yes, I adore N°22. It would be absurd to compare them in quality. They’re both masterpieces, end of story. Onto how I perceive N°22: the aldehydes present as very soapy. Not at all like N°5. Very interesting and completely unexpected. I’ve never smelled anything like this. It’s so soapy it’s like smelling a triple milled bar right under your nose, and let me tell you, it’s the best bar of soap you’ve ever smelled. Actually, it makes me want to buy and fill my closets and bathrooms with expensive French milled soap… Anyway, the incense is there from beginning to end. When I sampled the current edp at Chanel’s boutique, I did not get this at all, but I’m curious to try it again having spent some time with the vintage. If it’s as good as this, I might have to bite the bullet on the price tag. There’s just nothing like this. The vetiver marries the white florals to the incense seamlessly. I don’t even like vetiver. I don’t always like soapy notes either, it’s too much for me in Insolence, which I otherwise like. It’s so pretty, so feminine and lovely, just ahh…

Know that this review will have meandering personal diatribes, as me and 22 have a storied history that became a filter making it harder to separate my more objective feelings on the scent itself from its context in my life- although i believe i finally have and can give an honest opinion. It started with a bottle of vintage 22 eau de cologne i acquired, a blind buy, perhaps my first ever as this was the very first designer fragrance bottle i ever bought, after hearing persolaise wax poetic about what this scent meant to him. I was initially disappointed. It didnt live up to the hype. There was something unplaceable in that which reminds me of bathroom products i initially found offputting. But the scent stuck with me for some reason, and i actually grew to love it. I smelled it today and do not quite see what i saw back then, even though i do find that vintage edc to be more to my liking than the modern edp- Flash forward a bit, its the end of 2023, and i am visiting a man i love, the first and only man i ever truly loved, an ex candian television host, in vancouver-and i am staying at a beautiful old hotel near the water and stanley park, with vines growing all up the side of the building- if you live there, you know which hotel it is. I had seen the movie priscilla in theaters the day before and the vintage bottles of chanel no 5 really stuck out in my mind. I was curious to go to the chanel store since i live in a rural area and had never been to one, and see if anything struck me in any way. There was one nearby, and i went at night before it closed. They had most of the les exclusif collection and i pretty much sampled all of them they had. Some i kinda liked, but 22 was the only one, maybe aside from coromandel, that seemed interesting or unique at all to me. I took some sample cards back to my hotel and thought it over, returned the next day and bought a bottle of 22 because something about it just spoke to me. Its odd for this to be my entryway into what ended up being a deep interest in fragrance, because chanel as a house really does not appeal to my personal tastes- clinical soapiness and effeminate florals are the opposite of what i love generally now, and thats the bread and butter of the chanel dna. I love to wear things that feel human and warm and spicy and generally more masculine and naturalistic. But i loved the aesthetic of it, the antiquity, the romanticization of it, the projected regality of it, and still appreciate the strive for olfactory beauty from the house. And something about 22 really still sticks with me. I remember that relationship ending a couple days later, very suddenly and unexpectedly, with both of us not communicating well at the time it went down. I still associate 22 with the whirlwind of emotions that went on during that trip. And it honestly doesnt shroud it with negativity like one might expect it to. I cherish it in every respect. And everytime i open that cap it all comes back to me without even having to spray it To get onto the scent profile itself…. I couldnt quite wrap my head around it for a long time, like the edc, the edp also stuck with me despite having something unplaceable that reminds me of bathroom products in an unpleasant way. Someone on youtube was talking about this scent and how extremely sterile it came off to them, and that it reminded them of a bubble bath. And so much of this scent clicked with me and i could finally understand it and be more objective about it with that context. Because its totally true, this to me is essentially white florals and a bubble bath. On clothes i can also clearly see the base resemblance to chanel no 5. And It truly does smell like a bubble bath… to be clear, that is not the bathroom product aspect of this i was referring to, i think what im picking up on is one of the floral notes that rubs me the wrong way, i still cant place it and it still bothers me. I have a core memory of an elementary teacher placing these flowers in her room- and all the kids kept asking what that awful smell was- to her the smell was beautiful but it had an inherent negative instinctive response from all the kids- thats kinda how i feel about 22- i think its utter class and sophistication in a bottle-and yet i think it might smell a little instinctively offputting to most people. If you know the history of chanel herself, her affinity for soapy scents is believed to be linked back to her time in an orphanage and her being tasked to clean the floors- i imagine something about the orderliness or purity of cleanliness brought her some solace in an otherwise hectic life at the time. Well, 22 is like the ultimate amped up ode to that cleanliness. I believe this was a precursor to something like byredo’s blanche- where the intention is to convey a pure white sensation- both done through the HEAVY use of aldehydes that are concentrated on lifting the clean soapy qualities of each respective fragrance. To be honest, while it does make 22 much more interesting than if the fragrance excluded the aldehydes- it would feel like it lands flat in a basic way-the aldehydes lifting and fizzing those soap bubble elements here is perhaps too much. Like if you had a headache, i would advise you not to spray 22 in fear that it would make one feel worse. It feels especially prevalent on skin. It does feel like a pure white, but is pushing too much sanitary cleanliness in your face (still better and less detergent-y than Blanche imo). This is very cold and austere, not warm or human, but the fizziness from the aldehydes and just how ramped up they are add an interesting x factor… overall if im being fully objective, i dont care for this scent, i dont love the florals used, and i think if i bought some cheap scent diffuser thing that pumped out this exact scent, i would not really like it…I dont think the scent profile is dated per se, but the approach to its composition does feel very old. I feel like only a few people could pull this off, a very sophisticato french girl perhaps. I could imagine audrey hepburn smelling like this in breakfast at tiffanys. Someone who looks chic and appeals to old fashioned sensibilities. But personally i wouldnt really wear or recommend this even AND YET i still find something utterly beautiful about it. Performance is stellar, it has amouage levels of quality control. Generally i think the les exclusifs line is overpriced based on a fake veil of exclusivity and includes a lot of scents that feel like the worse form of their former edt counterparts (which i wish they sold instead of the edps). But the quality and longevity of 22 almost makes the price feel a little understandable… also the eclusifs rectangular bottles with the magnetic caps are the epitome of beauty to me. Simple, but still maybe my favorite bottle design of all time. this is also the only les exclusif that stands out to me as being uniquely classical, and i would consider anyone who chooses this over any of the other offerings from the house to have impeccable taste. As you can tell i have a lot of clashing thoughts about this fragrance Overall- kind of a weird scent, tbh…its beautiful but also smells like a photorealistic freshly cleaned public bathroom or someone who just showered with a very basic soap

Not sure where to put this review, I can't find the EdT page, so I guess I'll post on the three pages listed for the EdP :( Walk down memory lane today. Mine is the EdT from somewhere late 80's early 90's and from the description everyone else is giving, very different. Then again, mine is old. Yes, aldehydes, yes white florals, (mine come across as creamy, though) but what I'm not getting from reviews is that glorious vetiver that gives this a woody base that just holds everything together perfectly. Like a wood bowel, holding the flowers and slightly soapy, effervescent nuances from the aldehydes. It's classic and classy, different, wearable in a way today's woody bases just are not. I hate the pretentiousness of some perfume collectors today, but it is art. I wear mine, but it's not an everyday kind of wear, which say, No.19 or even Cristalle can be. But back in the day this came in BIG bottles, so I guess it was used and enjoyed, everyday.

I came home tonight with a craving to wear this. It’s oddly comforting and one of the only perfumes where I actually understand the point of the aldehydes. Normally I just kind of wait them out. There’s something decent about this. Decent in the old fashioned sense of the word — structured, well behaved, having integrity, being kind. Somehow I find it fortifying. Note wise, the white florals are framed by the aldehydes, keeping them from overwhelming. The rose really comes through. And the base is more vetiver/iris than vanilla for me, but my splash bottle is very old, probably from the 1940s.

I wear the exclusives version in order to save my vintage 90s 00s bottles. I tend to foget how truly spectacular the older versions are in comparison. I wore a 90s version yesterday and WOW....so powerful! This beauty can overpower one quickly, which wouldn't happen with the current version unless you really oversprayed. Don't get me wrong, the new version is beautiful but it is much lighter, and almost dainty compared to the original. The older versions had the deep vanilla and incense that are spectacular. I know the aldehydes are the star of the show but it is the combination with the deeper heady notes that have it stand out from all others. A powerhouse that lasts all day in to night and then some. For me the vanilla has always been the beauty note in this materpiece. It was great to visit once again.

Does anyone know any good alternatives to this scent that wont cost a fortune?

Couldn’t find a batch code but after research it’s very likely a 1980s batch, so my experience might be different than others.

Opening is so strong on the aldehydes it’s almost balsamic/smoky dense. But when it settles it’s a beautiful aldehydic based white floral that’s a bit dirty spicy from the nutmeg with some sweetness and brightness from the vanilla and ylang. I like it, really old fashioned which I love. I’ll check which my bottle is but I’m suspecting 90s/00s batch

This is Chanel no 5 on steroids !!!! If you love no5 then this is it it's the same dna I adore it

This is the perfume that made me fall in love with white florals. I have a distinct memory of my first time smelling it. I ordered a miniature (extremely small size, fits in my pocket). Despite it being such a small perfume, it was like an amazing changed my world experience. The first whiff was heaven, literally like I had died and reached Heaven. Everything is white and full of clouds. Smells like angel wings and clouds. Aldehydes I already loved before wearing this aldehyde top fragrance but the aldehyde opening to this is not harsh or too sharp; just soft and bathy soapy aldehydes. Smells like a white soap bar. The neroli and orange blossom are the first accords. Fresh and sweet, citrusy but not too strong. A light orange. Then the white flowers. Definitely jasmine and lilies of the valley plus a creamy tuberose. There's also ylangylang and white rose plus iris. These flowers each have time to sing to you. The sweetness and powderiness is perfect. Then there's vanilla that emerges from the base. A delicious vanilla frosting and vanilla cake. Then there's possibly white musk (not too much). The dry down is warmer than the way it starts. By the time it's dried down, it's warm and white-musky. The warmth is actually suited to fall and winter. This perfume is so delicate and yet unisex. It's just like a nice white powdery cloud that fills your nose and head. Sweet and lovely. Clean. This is definitely giving me wedding day vibes. A bridal scent. But this is also a soothing wear to bed and smells good to help you to sleep kind of fragrance. I love those kind of perfumes so much. Yes it is a very expensive fragrance at 300 dollars at the Chanel boutique store but worth the price. The first time I went to a Chanel store to buy this I didn't have enough money and I was very sad. All the sales ladies did was make me feel very VIP showing me to an upstairs part of the boutique where they had the fragrances. They sprayed it on a scent strip paper. I smelled it and that was it. But then I came back another time to buy it. I will always keep buying it whenever I have 300 dollars or more to spend on it because it is really the greatest white floral fragrance of all time.

Chanel #22 is simply bottled joy. Spritz a spray on your wrists, another on your cleavage and enjoy your day. It is impossible to frown while wearing #22. Wear #22 to a show or on a date, perhaps to the party you've contemplated the last couple weeks. Your make-up is perfect, your dress is spectacular, your beaming smile can halt traffic. Make a wish. Chanel #22. La-la-la-la-love. Edit: I'm editing my review for one simple reason. I have #22 in 3 forms (all vtg.); perfume, spray EDT (1970s), and vtg bath oil. OMG..... the bath oil is perfection. I wish we could share with our fellow fumies that we are wearing this GORGEOUS creation, and how much we LOVE it! Pretty please add to the fragrance selections the option for the bath oil. It may be the best of the best. To the powers that be on this wonderful perfume heaven site, check out your own stashes in the quest for bath oils in your possessions. I just know you'll agree with me. This vtg #22 bath oil is truly The Nectar of The Gods. Thank you very much. 8-D

This is the page for the classic formulation of 22. You can still find it in Eau de Cologne (modern day variant is edt) and Eau de Toilette (modern day variant is EDP) and Parfum. I see some leaving reviews for the updated and modernized formula of No. 22 No way is this synthetic in any way what so ever! I was a little nervous about trying a 1970’s bottle of No. 22 EdC but I’m so happy I have a 2 oz splash. I don’t normally like clean or floral scents but something about Chanel’s DNA moves me. To my nose, the aldeyhdes come across like very expensive, finely milled French soap. Not suds, or bubbles. The smell it leaves behind after you dry your hands. Under that are pristine white florals (I smell lily- no rose) and the faint trail of incense embers that are about to go out. This is contemplative and opaque and silky. I’m only in the first hour. I am so excited for the dry down. Will edit in a few hours. If anyone has a decant or partial bottle of a vintage edt or Parfum and wants to trade for something I have- message me Edit: No. 22 is becoming sweeter and slighty smoky as it dries down. This does not smell dated or old fashioned to me. Perhaps in the beginning some might find the ylang-ylang note a bit “grandma” but I don’t get that and I sometimes struggle with ylang-ylang. This is from dabbing 4 times on one arm. I will decant into a spray atomizer and see if I perceive any differences. I did with my vintage Shalimar edt. Edit 2: I tracked down a sealed bottle of Vintage N° 22 edt. It’s a 19 Ml splash from the 80’s/90’s and I am so happy I did! The differences are the vanilla and incense are pronounced in the EdT and the orange blossom shines where in the EdC; the lily is front and center- It’s also a touch sweeter and projects more than the EdC. The EdC is so beautiful and delicate and the EdT is velvety smooth and rich in comparison. If you have a partial bottle of the EdT (vintage as the Les exclusifs version of N° 22 no longer had incense) please message me to swap or sell.

A lush Art Deco flower bouquet, which crosses time, dominating it, without being influenced by cheap fashions and reformulations. Flowery bouquet where ylang ylang, lily and tuberose are the main protagonists, amplified, elevated by the retro magic of aldehydes. An absolute masterpiece by the great master perfumer Ernest Beaux, the masterful creator of N 5. A hyper-feminine, timeless fragrance that opens with a thunderous floral tone and evolves until it becomes a delicate powdery fragrance of rare beauty. Absolute masterpiece.

I could never have appreciated this when I was new to perfumery, and new to Chanel. Aldehydes this powerful can be overwhelming and make an untrained nose scream “NO!”. Thankfully, I tried No 22 long after I had fallen in love with Chanel and No 5, so I was ready to appreciate this beauty. I won’t break apart the notes, so many reviews do that already. I wanted to comment on how No 22 makes me feel. When I wear this, it’s because I want to feel clean… austerely clean and both untouched and untouchable. It’s a contemplative scent that repels the outside world, letting me relax into my own thoughts. I could never explain why I have these feelings when I wear No 22, but that’s okay with me. I’m just glad to have this scent to lean on when the world pushes too hard on my equilibrium.

I love a good blend of Lily of the Valley in many fragrances but this one just smells like a killer headache inducing bouquet of giant day lilies and moth balls. If you have anyone allergic to lillies or hyacinths in the house, don’t go for this one. Try a vintage Eau de Cologne No 5 for the classic, powdery Chanel without the headache or Chanel No 19 EDT for a fresh, bright, unique and green fragrance. It gives off a definite “near a waterfall in the mossy woods in the 1970’s” vibe with No 19.

Has a classic Chanel opening - soapy, sparkly, aldehydes. The aldehydes here lack the fatty, waxy quality that they have in No. 5, and instead are very bright and sparkly. Loved the opening - delicious, clean, very soapy, unisex, and bright, without being floral, sweet, or "too much" of a particular note. Loved it for the first two hours or so, but the dry down.... pretty flat, dusty, and synthetic. I'm not sure what the note in here is that my nose isn't liking - I usually love iris, so maybe it's the nutmeg. Average longevity and fair projection. The dry down isn't for me, but gorgeous opening. Scent: 6/10 (opening 9/10, dry down 3/10) Longevity: Average Projection: Average

No. 22 EDT is heavenly. Much like it's far more famous sibling, No. 5, No. 22 is built on an overdose of aliphatic aldehydes. These are what give fragrances a lift, a sparkle, they are ethereal, the superstars of sillage. Aliphatic aldehydes are organic compounds that have no aromatic rings attached to the aldehyde group. Moreover, these molecules do not have any aromatic ring attached to anywhere of the compound. What does this mean? Well, more simply put, it allows these molecules to fly like albatrosses and exhilarate olfactory receptors in a way aromatic aldehydes and other scent molecules can't. To put it plainly, they are the razzle-dazzle in a composition. In No. 22, they soar off the skin and pull the florals with them, and we experience once more, as with No. 5, the synergy between the aldehydes and ylang ylang. However, no 22 is more about the interplay with the white florals, and is a bit less lusty and more proper. Be that as it may, it isn't prissy by any means, and in fact I would argue that it has more unisex potential than No. 5. due to there being a classic cologne overtone of neroli and a plush woodiness to its dry down. Today, I wear this on a sunny day, with clear blue skies, and it seems rather apt: it has that disposition, elegantly hopeful and confident. This is based on a vintage 19ml bottle, date unknown.

Got a vintage partial and felt a mix of meh and ew upon spraying. Within a few minutes, though this turned into the fluffiest smelling thing I ever fluffin' smelled. It's surely in the 5 family, but I think you could like it or love it without having a positive take on any of the number 5 crew. If you like fluffy, fuzzy, soft and innocent smelling perfumes and would like an older version of that, boom.

Anyone willing to sell/ exchange this perfume ?

Kind of No 5. Full aldehyde. I