“The brief that was given to them for No. 1 was that they had to produce the best possible perfume that was known to mankind, and they were to ignore all costs and buy whatever they considered would produce the best results, even taking into account that it might not be sustainable,” said Christian. “In other words, next year, we may not be able to do it. Nobody has ever done that. No. 1 does change, year by year.”
— Clive Christian on accepting the Guinness World Record for the World's Most Expensive Perfume. Read more at Yahoo News, or buy Clive Christian No. 1 “presented in a handmade lead crystal bottle with a single natural white brilliant cut diamond in gold collar”, $2350 for 30 ml at Saks.
12 Comments
Read more about commenting at Now Smell This.
Just imagine buying a bottle of this perfume, spending so much money on it all and then finding out that you do not really like the juice…:-P
This is all such snobbish ado.
If you'd spend over $2000 on a perfume unsniffed, you'd deserve what you got
So True, LOL
You know, this is the kind of thing, like those perfumes for dogs, that really ratchets up my sense of how offensive (at least to me) consumption for consumption's sake is. I'd have a lot more respect for the people involved in this if they were to make one of the specifications “must be sustainable”, rather than what apparently happened here. But that's just me.
Talk about “money to burn.” Whoever decides that they're going to buy this perfume (especially if they don't smell it first) might as well light a match and watch their money burn that way (don't forget the s'mores!),
I have to admit that I think the bottle is much more appealing than the scent that's inside.
Think this is a kind of Donald Trump thing.
Read that Katie Holmes was wearing this fragrance at her weddingday..hope for her that Tom Cruise liked it
Sigh, the things people do to impress other people.. but the worst useless thing (to me) was that Guerlain golden lipstick holder with diamonds..was there no matching compact and mascara?
Now I am typing would like to state that the Trump Tower with all that gold 'plastered' over the walls and what else is n o t b e a t i f u l l , gold is for jewelry and accessoiries and dentistry.
The Donald should have used stainless steel on the walls, much more classy and modest.
Anyway… all that greed is not good for people and mother earth.
I predict a backlash against “luxury” soon.
I do like No. 1, I just don't love it, and as I'm not a bottle person, I have no need for any of it. Just as well as I haven't the cash
It is a pretty perfume even though I don't love it. She could have done much worse.
That would be good. I don't want you (or anyone else reading NST) to misunderstand. I love perfume, and I think we should all have the ability to seek out and experience things that give us pleasure, whether it be perfume, hiking, collecting Hummel figures, gardening, etc. [well, maybe not the Hummel figures part :-O ], but this kind of thing seems less about pleasure and more about competition to see who can be the most outrageous and wasteful. Rant over!
I love perfume too. And I can live with the fact to some extent, any perfume is a luxury — it isn't necessary. But over the top “luxury” is a complete turn off to me, so I know the feeling.