The casual reader may wonder why I’ve harkened back to two fragrances more popular and ubiquitous to the Reagan years than present day. There are actually a couple reasons for doing this, and these tend to align with more recent trends in fragrances.
Foremost, the pendulum has swung from strong and unapologetic florals/chypres/woods toward aquatics and citruses and now back to the floral/chypre/wood genre with some mild variations. Fragrances have also become somewhat less gender-specific in the same way that many fragrances that started as masculine or feminine became a template for a slightly altered version better suited to the other gender. Across the past 25 to 30 years, that line has either blurred or ceased to exist.
- A good example of this template is to compare Estee Lauder’s Cinnabar — the feminine fragrance — to JHL — the slightly altered masculine-marketed version. The two are quite similar, and both have now returned to the market with slight adjustments.
The next trend is the rediscovery of legacy fragrances, or ones that have been reissued with slight reformulations — call it updating for modern-day tastes with an eye toward maintaining the spirit of the original scent. With that in mind, I’ve chosen two fragrances that have a 1980′s heritage, largely true to their origins, and both surprisingly still maintaining present relevance. While both were once classified as “masculine”, I’d offer that the wearer should make their own choice given the current androgyny of the fragrance market.
Oscar de la Renta Pour Lui (1981)
This is the quintessential male powerhouse fragrance of the 80′s, so it seems odd to review it as an updated and potentially unisex note thirty years hence, even given its name (pour lui means “for him’ when translated from French). It also wouldn’t be the first time a men’s fragrance had broader appeal. The fragrance is ‘leather’, through and through. Top notes are aldehydes, caraway, juniper berries, lavender, galbanum, basil, caraway, sage, anise and bergamot; middle notes are cyclamen, carnation, patchouli, cinnamon, vetiver, cedar and geranium; base notes are labdanum, leather, sandalwood, musk and oakmoss.
Phrased more succinctly, this is simply a big fragrance. It’s very complex, not linear in any respect, and it continually transforms on skin aas well as being subject to variations in temperature — it’s a much different fragrance in summer than winter. If you look at the notes, it’s floral enough to qualify as unisex, yet it’s woody/spicy/deep enough to have a masculine appeal. Look for the oakmoss to be subject to substitution in future editions, since the natural component is being slowly phased out of all fragrance.
Why it’s worthy of mention
Original (circa 1981) bottle design
A quick look around the Web and you’ll begin seeing this at very reasonable prices, especially for an Eau de Toilette of such good quality. I recently found a 100ml available through a reputable web retailer for around $26 US plus tax with free shipping. You’ll equally find this in local resellers such as Perfumania, and potentially also in major retailers such as Macy’s, Lord & Taylor and the like. In short, it’s not expensive, the ingredients are of very good quality, and the fragrance itself shows a wonderful mastery not often in evidence with most current noses. It’s also different enough to have people become curious and intrigued.
This has been among my favorites for years, and for good reason.
Let’s briefly run through the notes before we talk about why this is significant. Top notes are juniper berries, green notes, galbanum, clary sage and anise; middle notes are carnation, jasmine, lily-of-the-valley and rose; base notes are sandalwood, amber, patchouli, musk, oakmoss, vanilla and cedar.
At first, it’s a green fragrance which turns slightly more floral, then transitions to a woody/amber/musk base. That said, if you recall this from its introduction, you won’t notice much variance from the original scent: it will be a tough one for anyone under say 35 to pull off since it doesn’t immediately strike the wearer as trendy or ‘hip’. It’s not Abercrombie & Fitch but something you’re more likely to smell in a corporate conference room, circa 1987. In short, it’s classic, understated, enduring and withstands the test of time.
As a disclaimer, however, I feel the need to state that Estee Lauder’s florals tend to have very similar composition, all seeming cut from the same cloth. If you dislike an Estee Lauder fragrance, this experience will be no different. If you find their florals acceptable or tolerable, again this will be no different and you’ll likely not have an issue with wearing this. But good, bad or indifferent, the heart note florals are a major player during the transition and will make or break your experience with Lauder for Men.
Why it’s worthy of mention
I’ll step back a second and mention that Lauder for Men is a ‘cologne’. Normally, one would expect the concentration/strength of a cologne to be much weaker than an eau de toilette or eau de parfum. Not so in Lauder’s case. The fragrance itself has quite a bit of staying power, and more than a few people have noted to not overdo application lest it become “Louder for Men”. A normal to light application is more than sufficient for several hours of wear.
This scent is the very definition of business suit and tie. It’s confident, it’s classic, it’s elegant, it’s understated. What it might lack in innovativeness it more than addresses in its simple sophistication.. Just as the hallmark of any Estee Lauder fragrance is playing it safe versus being ‘edgy’ or ‘trendy’, this will be no different. It’s a safe choice, it’s still generally available at secondary retailers (Perfumania, Web outlets, Amazon) as well as some department stores though in short supply and far between. Check with your retailer’s Lauder cosmetics counter, since it won’t be intermingled with their other men’s scents. Pricing for the EdC in 100ml averages between $55-60, some outlets slightly less.
(Editor’s Note: The current version still lists Oakmoss as a component, so expect that may change as current stock is depleted and oak moss prohibitions become more stringent.)
I'm Andrew Buck, the man behind the words. I'm a published author, project management practitioner for over 20 years, work on Wall Street, and am a fragrance aficionado. I've had a passion for fragrance for 30+ years, and enjoy trying scents and adding to an expanding and rotating collection for some time now. 
