Perfume review - Christian Dior New Look - Francis Kurkdjian; 2024
The simplest thing about Christian Dior New Look, Francis Kurkdjian’s latest addition to the brand’s Collection Privee, is describing how it smells. Starting with an iceberg-sized wallop of aldehyde (C12 MNA to be precise, the one that smells steamy, waxy, metallic, snuffed-candle-y and quietly pine-citrusy) it then makes way for a chilly frankincense note (conjuring a church that might have been frequented by the Snow Queen) before settling on an equally cool, haughty, pristine-white amber (without ever losing the silvery edge of the aldehyde).
Whether this is an attractive smell is a matter of personal preference. To this nose, it is extremely attractive indeed, partly because of its avoidance of warm, sweet cliches, and partly because the aldehyde, when dosed at such near-frightening levels, is magnetic, faceted, otherworldly and, as a result, deeply interesting.
So far, so good. But from this point onwards, New Look becomes a more problematic piece of work. For one thing, its name would suggest that it’s a replacement for 2010’s New Look 1947, the Francois Demachy composition based around tuberose. Dior have no qualms about playing fast and loose with the monikers of older scents (and indeed, the monikers of older scents from other brands, but let’s not go there). After all, they’re the people who saw fit to align the masterpiece that is Eau Sauvage with the not-quite-such-a-masterpiece that is Sauvage. So this partial re-labelling shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. But it does place a question mark over how New Look is to be perceived and interpreted. If there is a link with New Look 1947, it’s difficult to discern. And if there isn’t a link, it’s hard to understand why the creative forces at the brand couldn’t have come up with another, less loaded name. But Dior know all too well that such issues puzzle only the perfume geeks of this world, so they carry on blithely bulldozing their way through any notions of heritage or legacy.
The other potential point of contention is to do with New Look’s scent profile. Undoubtedly, Kurkdjian must be allowed the freedom to take Dior’s olfactory output into areas it hasn’t explored before. But it’s curious that for what is only his second standalone composition for the brand, he’s turned to a fragrance personality that many have understandably compared with Chanel’s. Sure, the latter doesn’t have exclusive rights over the use of aldehydes, but this very particular pairing of the aldehyde at the top with a marked incense heart veers close enough to Chanel No. 22 to prompt some to ask whether Captain Kurk’s take on haute couture is more Coco than Christian. Personally, I’d assert that it isn’t - New Look is a touch too strange to qualify as a Chanel scent - but the question is valid.
New Look’s mode of construction is also perplexing. Not unlike last year’s Dioriviera, it appears to operate as large, boldly delineated blocks: the aldehyde placed squarely atop the incense which is in turn locked onto the amber base. In terms of how it’s been put together, it’s certainly striking, but the price it pays for its Rothko-like decisiveness is perhaps a lack of nuance and detail, which takes it away from what are normally considered to be Dior’s strengths in perfume creation.
This is probably deliberate: a conscious attempt to define a new Dior aesthetic that will suit an age when intention and meaning have to be communicated much more rapidly and directly. The change in composition style isn’t a problem per se: after all, Kurkdjian shouldn’t feel bound to the past. And a certain amount of ‘identity uncertainty’ can be forgiven, especially when a perfumer is still flexing his muscles in a new environment. Indeed, all of the above niggles can be forgiven, even the annoying one related to the name clashes. But what can’t be pardoned is that, on a technical level, New Look doesn’t quite tick as it should.
Although it displays impressive tenacity - retaining its personality for several hours on both paper and skin - the fact is that its diffusion and sillage are disappointing. If New Look is meant to represent a modern take on Dior’s commitment to the true spirit of haute couture, then it needs to balance elegance and discretion with a carefully-judged level of head-turning power. It scores high marks for the former, but not quite so many for the latter, which is why it’s ultimately unsatisfying. The brand should have taken a lesson from one of their own recent clothing collections and learned that a genuine olfactory expression of a ‘new look’ should be less demure. And that it should have the confidence to hold the gaze of passersby long enough to leave a lasting, if subtle, impression.
Persolaise
To watch my YouTube review of this perfume, please click on this link: Christian Dior New Look review.
[Christian Dior New Look review based on a sample provided by the brand in 2024.]
Magnificent read, as always. Your sensible and empathetic and always respectful, yet decisive and conclusive writing is remarkable, to say the least. I’ve read this article three times, and all times I’ve smiled, if not tickled by the many implicit thoughts and feelings your words are able to conjure.
Thank you for putting into proper respectful writing what I’ve been trying to express in not-so-eloquent fashion. There is one thing that I will possibly disagree on (if disagreement is even the right choice of word for this statement): while Francis K. shouldn’t be bound to the past, there is a heritage that should be honored. After all, it is the house of Dior. Whatever “new look” he’s wanting to inspire and bring forth to the table should at the very minimum represent the table he’s sitting at. For example, we need not even mention how Thierry Wasser has respectfully represented and dignified Guerlain while he was still head perfumer for the house.
I absolutely loved the phrase of “identity crisis as he’s flexing his perfumer muscles”... while it made me laugh, it also taught me a measure of forgiveness and empathy as I understand the level of pressure and stress he’s going through and learning the ways of Dior. Perhaps he should connect with more sound-minded and experienced perfumers (as perhaps the honorable Thierry Wasser) as he also learns the ropes of representing a house that is not his, and even more so as renowned a house as Dior’s.
Thank you for bringing so much joy to my day today. Enjoy reading your thoughts and well-versed opinions. Here’s to hoping an edgier and more impactful fragrant future at Dior.
Scented (not in “New Look”, but rather in the former 1947 Look) regards,
- David
I greatly enjoyed this long form review. With the tv series about Christian Dior entitled The New Look set to debut in February (in the US on Apple TV), it would seem Dior, and this fragrance, is well positioned to garner additional interest. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Kurkdjian is able to breathe new life into their Private Collection perfume line which, overall, I want to love more than I actually do. I feel the line has yet to reach its full potential in creating thought-provoking classics. But I’m very intrigued by this one and will seek it out. Thanks again!