Tsar by Van Cleef & Arpels

I tried it; it’s a classic gentleman fragrance, nothing for the young. Its Achilles’ heel is performance and projection.

I fell in love with it just from the miniatures. It has a fresh, green, and sober opening, woody, with well-crafted and balanced rosemary and pine, making it less sharp, rounder, and more natural than its contemporaries. As it dries, oakmoss gradually enters, maintaining the green profile until the end. The downside is that it contains Lyral and Lilial, a toxic cocktail. I’m still looking for alternatives because neither Jaguar for Men nor Pasha de Cartier (fortunately) come close. Dua’s Emperor’s Elixir does come close, but it’s ruined by an exaggerated amber that makes it too warm to be a decent inspiration. I’ll keep updating as I try more. Update (Montana Black): No, it’s more like Pasha than Tsar. Update (Horizonte Oboticario): Nothing alike; it doesn’t resemble it at all. I don’t know who thought it was similar to Tsar, but they were completely wrong.

I tried it in 2012, and my colleagues kept complaining about the pine, and they were right; it was a Wild Pine but with class.

Does anyone know if Dua’s inspiration is worth it? I can’t find the fragrance at a decent price; it seems there are only speculators.

Thank you very much, Davik81. I tried to place the order, but I don’t see an option for Spain. Do you guys ship from other countries?

@Violeta12345 – DUA Fragrances has the inspiration. Greetings.

The vintage version of Tsar is like a siren enchanting the senses with timeless magic. I adore fresh 80s openings, fougère-chypre style, and Tsar doesn’t disappoint: it’s a deep masculinity statement without complications. It opens with citrusy lavender, a bit bold and bitter thanks to the artemisia and neroli. It leaves a humid forest aura that becomes more relaxed and dry. The heart is what sets it apart: juniper, carnation, jasmine, lily of the valley, iris, and rose. A unique and well-executed balance. The base is chypre, but not overpowering; it’s respectful. Tonka and amber keep the leather, moss, and patchouli in check, preventing them from veering too dark. Could a gemstone smell like an emerald? If it could, it would be vintage Tsar: exquisite, precious, and worthy of any classic collection.

I don’t know how this perfume would have smelled years ago, but its aroma is splendid and green as mentioned, and many notes from the description are noticeable. It smells sweet and verdant with leather and pine nuances, but it’s a pity it lasts so little; I wonder if before the reformulation it had better longevity. I found it by chance at a perfumery in Granada and, guided by reviews, bought it blind for 40 euros; I have no regrets. The perfume on my skin comes and goes, but it comforts me with that wonderful greenness. What a shame it’s for such a short time.

I’m writing this review of Van Cleef & Arpels Tsar out of consideration for Fragantica users who, after reading the excellent references above, want to buy it. As José José sang, ‘What’s past is past,’ one of the best exponents of 20th-century Mexican bohemian music. Tsar was simply a great perfume, and what once was, will not be. The new generation bottle is made of shiny dark green glass, like the online sales ads. I ordered it via Amazon.com; I don’t know if they sold me a pirate copy or if the new batches are truly poor in longevity and sillage. I managed to try it on a friend with the green ribbed bottle with darker shadowed spots; his sillage and longevity were much greater. I’ve never tried the content of the ribbed bottle with the brown cap. The aroma is good, the opening very green, intoxicating with memories, retro, foresty, and festive. But it all ends in the blink of an eye. I use it as an after-shave. ‘And what did you do with the love you swore to me… and killed the hope that was in me,’ as Mario de Jesús says.

After a year of buying Tsar (reformulated version), I’ve perceived that temperate and hot seasons enhance this beautiful fragrance, at least in the Mediterranean city where I live. I seriously thought last winter that it would be ideal, but I was wrong. Now, in the middle of summer (July 5th) and at noon, I notice its aroma more and better. Although its pyramid is correct on my pH, green and floral notes remain dominant, very well assembled. Sincerely, I think it’s more for daytime, although I’ve never tried it at night. I find Tami Franco’s review and her theory of Aristotle’s arithmetic mean very interesting, where she says it’s possible to use Tsar in the heat. It’s a very apt and beautiful fragrance, one of those no longer made today, and yet it doesn’t feel classic; it’s totally usable. Van Cleef & Arpels Pour Homme does seem nocturnal and for cold times. Two sides of the same French coin with two very good perfumes that, in recent creations, I’ve found to be of inferior quality. These are very good from the house: each in its corresponding time, they offer sufficient performance and play. I’d say they are two gems that, for now, survive in the current men’s fragrance market.

I would have loved to try the vintage edition. To me, it’s a great perfume, as I mentioned in previous reviews, but I feel it lacks a bit more longevity to be my absolute favorite. I absolutely love Van Cleef & Arpels, and I prefer their Pour Homme by far.

Thanks, Tony. Yes, that’s the reformulation I bought in April 2016. Honestly, I like it, except that it clings to the skin before an hour is up. I’ll follow your advice to apply it more generously, and of course, if I spot the vintage edition, I’ll buy it. Many thanks, buddy.

A beautiful fragrance I’ve wanted for years, and finally it’s possible to own. Every scent needs its time to be worn, a determination, a consensus with oneself. It’s always better not to rush with important fragrances, and this one, dear friends, is important to me. I totally agree with Azuriiita that this liquid is tender, relaxing, and masculine. It’s clear, wonderful, and occupies a place that some will reach after patient attempts to know it well (like I did myself). It’s neither sweet nor dry, nor does it lack either quality; it’s not cloying nor intrusive; it doesn’t have an excessive trail, but it projects a very special aura. It is suggestive, mysterious without pretending to be so, simple and complex like a mature woman… I guess it was a fragrance created with dedication and care, as anyone who wears it dissolved like a balm of elegance and gentleness in their DNA can feel. Prietcallas says it reminds them of YSL’s Jazz, and it’s very true, although the first déjà vu I got was from Lomani Pour Homme, a fragrance created two years before this Tsar. I’m sure that in some way, this Van Cleef could have been inspired to some extent by Lomani and Jazz, the latter created a year before Tsar. And I think all three, like so many others, could have had the emblematic Pour Homme by Paco Rabanne as an inspirational base, to which they owe so much. Oh, and the wonderful Quorum from ’81 also has something to do with all this… Edit: It’s very curious that the same year, ’89, the Boton by Puig came on sale, whose scent (more or less linear) is the same as the dry down of Tsar… Coincidence?

Back in the early 90s, my dad had a bottle of this Tsar that I couldn’t resist wearing whenever I got the chance. I still vividly remember that scent, as no other fragrance has ever captured that dense, deep, green woody cloud of personal maturity and elegance so well. It’s one of my favorites; I wear it quite a bit from fall through spring, and I must say I don’t recall many differences from the original, not even in longevity and projection. I always feel very welcomed by the burst of cilantro and pine when you spray it, and the dry down, woody and resinous, is a true delight, a genuine masterpiece. For those who haven’t tried it, imagine a Quorum by Puig with a stronger emphasis on green notes. More or less. Regarding longevity and projection, I’m convinced there are no significant differences from the original: we tend to think all 80s fragrances were brutal, but that’s not always the case; plus, by the late 80s, monstrous projection wasn’t the goal anymore, something more subtle and fresh was preferred. In fact, during my high school days, around 93-94, since my modest allowance couldn’t afford to buy Tsar myself (it was MUCH more expensive than it is now), I used the cheap clone of that era, Camel Eau de Toilette, which I felt was identical. Curiously, I was able to buy a bottle of this Camel recently (discontinued years ago), and yes, there are differences with the original, though slight: Camel has more woodiness. But it still doesn’t reach the power of the current Tsar. On my skin, which has serious issues with longevity and projection, I can wear Tsar in the morning, where it will project well for its good four to five hours; then it stays closer to the skin, but you can still smell it even by night. Tsar wasn’t a monster back in its day, and it isn’t one now. But it is above average for today. If you’re fans of this type of perfume, don’t hesitate for a second (this recommendation also applies to the admirable Camel; buy it if you see it, but don’t pay an arm and a leg for it since it’s just a clone). Note: 10/10

A blast of Tsar by Van Cleef is like stepping into the ‘other side’ of perfumery… Back to the 80s with all its power, complexity, and voluptuousness… A fragrance that gathers the deepest woods of the forest, with oak moss, vibrant and fresh green notes, and incredible spices that show themselves cheerfully: tarragon, rosemary, cilantro, cinnamon… It also gifts citrus and the most beautiful flowers that smell magnificently… And the dry down, with leather, sandalwood, tonka bean, and the brilliant patchouli… What else to say? Another paradigm… Almost the opposite of the current diluted perfumery industry… A deeply green and woody perfume, of a mature cut (that’s relative), for cold climates, with excellent fixation, development, and projection…