I think it is important to mention the original fragrance whenever reviewing a dupe, clone, or inspired-by scent because that gives the review real context. Without naming the original, people do not really know what the fragrance is trying to be or what it is being compared against. The whole point is to let people know the scent profile it is aiming for, how close it gets, where it differs, and whether it is even worth their time. It also helps in a few important ways. It gives context, because people immediately understand the style, mood, and DNA you mean. It allows for a fair comparison, since they can tell whether you are saying it is close, loosely inspired, or just shares a similar vibe. It avoids confusion, because otherwise someone may think you are reviewing it as a totally original creation. It helps buyers, too, since most people want to know whether it is a real stand-in for an expensive original they already know. And it keeps the review honest, because it makes clear that part of the fragrance’s identity is tied to another scent. Otherwise, it can come across like the fragrance is standing on its own creatively when a big part of its identity clearly comes from another scent. To me, leaving out the original just makes the review feel incomplete and less useful. It can also make it seem like the fragrance is more original than it really is. If a brand is clearly borrowing from another scent DNA, I think that should be said openly so people can judge it fairly.

Macys is having a members sale today and I’m going to add a bottle or two. I added my current collection minus born in Roma extra dose and Afnan supremacy collectors edition. Give me some ideas to look at today.