I really think if Burberry repackaged it and put some marketing behind it Touch would find a whole new - and mass - audience.īurberry Touch for Men (2000) must have seemed downright mellifluous to the nose after the rather plain-spoken pure 90's freshness that was Burberry Weekend for Men (1997), which along with Ted Baker Skinwear (1998) and Penhaligon's Quercus (1996), more or less encapsulated the popular lemon-powered "sons of Blenheim" neo-barbershop style British masculines were going through in the latter half of the decade. It probably will always be in the moment. But Touch smells nothing like most colognes from that time period (with the exception of The Dreamer). And relegates it to the discounters and rack stores (not a bad thing for the person looking fir cheapie gold). That clean, minimalist and modern look so ubiquitous in the 90’s and early 2000’s kind of (unfairly) traps Touch in that timeframe. The look and vibe of the bottle is cool too but dated. It’s a smooth, refined 4 season scent, with good sillage and decent duration. I have really come to love and respect Touch. Akin to The Dreamer in this way, as well as in the sweetness (tobacco leaf?). These are all riffs on Touch IMO.Įdit 8/4/22: A big difference to the above is that Touch is very powdery, while the aforementioned are not. I’m thinking about the clean, sweet, spicy, woody, fragrances so prevalent today.
0 kommentar(er)
