Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Bobbi Brown Shimmer Blush Pink Coral - Review

I admit it - I love blush. Mostly corally pink, shimmery blushes. At one point, a MAC makeup artist told me that would be the best color for my skin tone and coloring, and I apparently took that to heart. I'd estimate 70% of my blushes are in the coral/pink/peach vein, and every time a new one comes out, I feel the urge to bring my wallet from my purse.

About a year ago, I hit a Bobbi Brown phase, and dumped a lot of money in a short period of time on Bobbi's products. While everything I tried was nice, I never felt like I just had to use it. I'd get something new, and wouldn't feel that urge to take off the makeup I was wearing to apply the new whatever. I've swapped away quite a bit of it, and kept only a few things that I really like. This blush is one of those pieces.

Bobbi's blushes are $24 each. You get 0.13 oz of blush in a black, square pan that fits into any of Bobbi's  customizable palettes.To compare, MAC blushes are $19.50 for 0.21 ounces for the potted variety, and $16.50 for the propan.

Pink Coral is described as a "a bright warm pink." While I see the pink, I think the description is missing the yellow tone that brings this color into the coral family, which is reflected in the name. The pan would indicate loads of glitter, but I don't really see that when it's applied. While pink isn't a color I can wear easily, I like this color on me, despite the strong pink tone. It definitely is a warm toned color, and lasts all day on me, unlike other higher end blushes (*cough* NARS*cough*).

I also really appreciate Bobbi's palette system. Everything can be removed from it's original case and put into her palettes. She even sells palette-ready foundation, concealers, lipglosses and lipsticks, perfect for putting together your own face-case (remember that Urban Decay product from back in the day? I wanted all of them!) for a trip, and then rearranging once you return home.

Overall, I like this blush. I'm not convinced it's terribly unique (I have a Sonia Kashuk blush that looks suspiciously similar, which I need to swatch and review and stuff). The last power makes it a winner in my book, though.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Revlon Custom Eyes Naturally Glamorous Palette - Review

Revlon has always struck me as a grandma-brand. When I was younger, it seemed impossibly expensive (that sounds so funny to say now, though), and they always seemed to use older models than young, hip, and less expensive brands like Maybelline. As I've grown up, and had the opportunity to try some of Revlon's products, I'll have to say that I'm not that impressed. Sure, they're okay, mediocre at best, but they don't justify that higher (drugstore) price tag.

There are a few exceptions, however. This palette is one of them. I read a post on Makeupalley saying these cable-knit-looking palettes were amazing, soft, buttery, just the best thing ever. When cruising through my local Fred Meyer during a 40% Revlon sale, I decided to give one a try, and since I'm a fan of neutrals, Naturally Glamorous was the best choice for me.

Each palette has 5 shadows, and retails for between $10 - $13. The shadows all share the same pan, there's no dividers between them. I've already gotten rid of the applicator, but it was the standard fair for drugstore palettes - two different shaped sponges on a stick. No mirror is included with this palette, which is normal, as well.

 The back just has a diagram of where to place the colors should go to create a specific look.

Each palette contains a liner shadow, two - three lid colored shadows, and a a highlighting shade. All of the colors in the palette lean warm. The liner shade, number 5, is a deep, blackened brown with shimmer. The neighboring shade, number 4, is a warm browned-gold. The highlight shade, number 3, is a light gold, that's just a touch frosty. Next, number 2, is a coppery-gold color, and last, number 1, is a golden taupe, sort of. The picture above is with flash, the picture below is no flash. You can see how different that last shade looks.

No names were provided for these colors, which seems normal for drugstore palettes. All of the shadows are decently pigmented, the only problem is that 3 of the 4 shades look very, very similar. They're by no means identical, but they seem superfluous, especially since the differences are fairly hard to notice when applied on my eye.

The texture, however, is the definitely the best thing about this palette. They feel very, very creamy, almost to the point where you start to wonder if they're cream shadows. They wear fairly well, and last on my lids 11 hours or so, at which point I remove my makeup.The liner doesn't really work as a liner, unless using a pencil brush, like the MAC 219. An angled liner brush, like the MAC 266, doesn't work.

I'm very impressed with this palette. I wish there were different shades in this palette, to really make it worth the money. Shades 2 and 4 are very, very similar. But, they wear and blend so nicely. Even shade 3, which could've been a frosty nightmare, is pleasant to use. I would definitely recommend this palette for neutral gals (and guys!) everywhere!

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Tarte Pure Maracuja Oil - Review

With both of the QVC TSV kits that I've ordered this year came a sample of Tarte's hyped maracuja, or passionfruit seed oil. Since I had two, I figured I might as well use one, so I used the first one I had received.

Tarte makes several claims, and backs them with some survey results. You can view these claims here. The bottle I used contained 0.17 fluid ounces, and lasted about a month using 3 - 4 drops from the included dropper once daily, before bed. Since several of the claims are based on 6 weeks' usage, I'll highlight those I can comment on:
  • In a consumer use study, 100% of subjects agree the Pure Maracuja Oil application directions are easy to understand and the product is easy to use.
  • In a consumer use study, 90.7% of subjects agree Pure Maracuja Oil absorbs quickly and doesn't leave any oily residue on skin after application.
  • In a consumer use study, 96.3% of subjects agree skin appeared smoother after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 88.9% of subjects agree skin appeared more radiant/luminous after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 83.3% of subjects agree there's a visible improvement in even skin tone after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 88.9% of subjects agree there's a visible improvement in skin texture after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 90.7% of subjects agree there's a visible improvement in skins moisture after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 64.8% of subjects agree pore size looks visibly reduced after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 77.8% of subjects agree fine lines and wrinkles look visibly reduced after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 81.5% of subjects agree skin elasticity has visibly improved after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 90.7% of subjects agree there's an overall visible improvement in skin after 3 weeks of use.
  • In a consumer use study, 90.7% of subjects agree skin appears renewed and rejuvenated after 3 weeks of use.
Gah. That's a lot of claims! So, is this snake oil? Or, it is a miracle worker? For the retail price of $46, I have to say, I wasn't overly impress. For your $46, you get 1.7 fl oz, which, using the same amount that I did, should last close to a year. 

I'll tackle the claims in order, for clarity's sake. I really like they included a statistic for how many people found the product, essentially, easy to use. Really? I guess they needed to have something that was at a nice, round, 100%. Yes, this oil is easy to use. I agree with this claim. I'd also agree the oil absorbs quickly, and my skin didn't feel oily. So, Tarte is right on that claim as well.

My skin didn't appear smoother, or more radiant, after 3 weeks. In fact, it looked.... the same as it did the month before. No change occurred with my skin tone - nothing was really evened out. The texture of my skin wasn't changed, and my skin was no more dry or oily than it had been before. My pores are still the size of compact parking spaces, so no change there. I cannot comment on the fine lines and wrinkles claim, yet, nor can I comment on the elasticity claim. 

The last two claims didn't hold true for me, either. My skin looked, essentially, the same after 4 weeks of daily use. I can say my face felt soft in the morning, as I applied this product at night.

So, is a soft face worth $46? No, because passionfruit seed oil is available at much more reasonable prices elsewhere, like here, or here. From The Herbarie (second link), 1 ounce is only $5.15, although they do have a minimum purchase requirement of $30.00 (they carry a lot of great oils, though!).

Would I purchase this product? Nope. Absolutely not at the price of $46. I balked, initially, at buying Bobbi Brown's EXTRA Face Oil, thinking I could make a ton of it for super cheap, but you can't. The price of jojoba oil is skyrocketing, and the EXTRA Face Oil contains very expensive essential oils (like Neroli, and Sandalwood). The Maracuja Oil has... Maracuja oil. Blended with a little more maracuja oil. That is available in a non-fancy bottle for less than $6.00. Tarte had an opportunity to make something great by adding some of these ingredients, but they decided not to. So, I won't be paying for this.

Friday, August 26, 2011

MAC Studio Careblend Pressed Powder - Review

I'm a total sucker for MAC stuff. My collection is at least 60% MAC, and I still get all excited about future launches. The one place I don't really have a full MAC collection is foundations and powders. I don't really know why - I've tried a few MAC foundations, and liked them well enough. I really like Blot powder, as well, but I just don't ever think to use it. I've been dying, however, to get my grubby hands on the Studio Careblend Pressed Powder since it debuted earlier this year. To keep myself out of trouble, I don't venture near MAC counters or stores (the last time I did, my bank account was about $150 lighter than it had been), so I had rely on swapping. Finally, I was able to swap for Studio Careblend Pressed Powder in Light Plus.

This powder retails for $23.00. Packaged in the standard black compact, with a mirror inside the lid, there's nothing very ground breaking here. MAC says:

Formulated to provide a smooth, virtually invisible, fresh-looking finish, this soft, cream-like powder is carefully blended to provide the skin with extra care, nourishment and comfort.
In all honesty, this powder doesn't feel creamy at all. Maybe I associate "creamy" with moist (what an unpleasant word that is), but it just feels like any other powder. Light Plus is very, very, yellow on me. Almost to the point that it's not a great match for me, a light NC15 (I have a feeling I'd be more of a neutral match in most MAC foundations.
The bottom swatch is not blended, while I did blend some in above it. As you can see, it does blend well using my finger, so with a brush, it's even better. It does provide very light coverage, more than Blot does, and I've heard some say they really like to set tinted moisturizers with this, because it boosts the coverage just a bit. Since I'm currently using the Tarte Amazonian Clay foundation, I thought I'd like the extra coverage, but it just doesn't appear to add anything on my face.

This powder isn't geared towards my skin type, I think. I've been told I have dehydrated skin that manifests itself as being oily (which both makes sense, and doesn't make any sense), and this powder doesn't seem to hold up to oils at all. I have to blot within hours of applying. I've tried pressing the powder in with a powder sponge, with a brush, and then just brushing it on. Nothing seems to make it defeat my t-zone's oil attack. I can't fault the product, though, since it's not really designed to be a blotting powder.

I was curious about the "comfort" aspect of the claims, wondering if this powder would address the surface redness of my cheeks. It didn't, but since MAC didn't make any claims that it would, I also can't fault the powder in this respect, however, the yellow-tone didn't really do much for my skin, either.

Overall, I won't buy this in the future. I'll keep this until winter, when my skin is a touch drier, to see how I feel, but... I'm not a seasonal makeup kind of girl. I want products that work 365 days a year, not 2 or 3 months a year.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Smashbox Brow Tech Trio - Review

Brow powder has to be the most unexciting thing to shop for, ever. At least it takes forever and a day or so to finish, though. I had a $10.00 Pretty Points certificate from Smashbox that was close to expiring, and decided to use it towards a product I've been overly curious to try, so for a mere $14.00, I selected the Brow Tech Trio in Soft Brown/Taupe (this product retails for $24.00).

Smashbox says:
We took one of our most popular core products and made it even better. Our brow trios have 2 shades of hair color-coordinated powders for a perfect match every time. Fill in brows with the lighter shade, define with the darker, then use the wax to seal them in place all day. Pair with Angle Brow Brush #12 for flawless application.

I was drawn to this product originally because it does have 2 shades of powder. It appears they no longer sell the single-color pot of brow powder, however, you can by just the brow wax here.

Although I have red hair, my brows are a disappointing brownish taupey color. I pray every day that my hair doesn't fade to this color as I age. If it does, I'm totally going to try using henna to get back the red. Moving on... I'm not close to finishing my MAC Brow Shader in Buttery/Blond Taupe (like I said, it takes forever to finish brow stuff), but I wanted something new, and in particular, I wanted to try Brow Tech, because it is almost always mentioned as a great brow product.

Not surprisingly, the colors of the powders are a soft brown, and a taupe. Like my brows, they are both ever-so-slightly cool. The wax is clear, but definitely provides some "shine" to my brows after I've applied. I appreciate that Smashbox didn't divide this trio into 3 equal parts, because I use the wax more than either powder. I'm still working with the colors to make the best match for my brows, since neither color is dead on, however, I like the ability to create a stronger brow by using more of the darker colored powder, or a softer brow using more of the lighter color. Both powders are very nicely pigmented, and easy to work with. I'm really liking the effect of the wax, as well. I've never had an issue with my brow powder migrating around my face or anything, but the shine is nice, but subtle.

I used my MAC 266 or 208 to apply the powder and wax, and I don't clean my brush after using the powder, as you can tell. After applying the wax, I use a brow brush to fix my brows where I want them (and I have a wild hair or two that just want to stick out a little - the brushing helps reign them in a bit, and ensure the wax is distributed evenly).

Overall, this is a sold product. It's easy to use, pigmented, and does what it should. I think it's a little pricey, however. $24 for a trio that's the same size as the standard MAC (or Smashbox, for that matter,) eyeshadow is a bit much - I wish it were a little bigger. The size issue isn't a terrible problem, since you could depot this and put in a palette, if you wanted to. Additionally, I'm fairly confident, that I won't run out of one particular shade before the other, and the wax hopefully will last as long as the powders, assuming it doesn't dry our or harden in any way. The Brow Tech Trio has it's good points, and it's bad. At this time, It's a suitable replacement for my Brow Shader (that doesn't need replacing, since I have at least 50% left). I'm not convinced I'll repurchase.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Stila Convertible Lip and Cheek Color in Gerbera - Review

Stila is a line that confuses me. Most of their products seem overpriced for the amount of product you get, and don't seem to perform well enough to make that price worth it. Out of all of the Stila I've had, I've only kept a few things - including the Smudgestick in Lionfish, and this blush. I love it so much, I wear it daily and have hit significant pan.
Convertible Lip and Cheek Colors are designed to be worn on the lips or cheeks, however, they are extremely drying on the lips, at least to me. So, I wear this exclusively on my cheeks. Stila says:
Stila's ingenious lipstick and blush-in-one proves to be irresistible.
This versatile favorite brightens cheeks and lips with creamy, translucent color. Tap onto cheeks and press onto lips. The sheer tint adds an inherent glow to the cheeks while lips bloom with fresh, radiant color. Our two-in-one compact holds the key to easy, monochromatic makeup. A must-have in every stila girl's kit. 
These are housed in color-coded compacts. $25 gets you 0.15 oz of cream blush. Bobbi Brown's version of this product, Pot Rouge, cost $24, and you get 0.38 fl. oz. I'll review Bobbi's version in a bit, but you can see how little product the Stila Convertible Colors have.
That being said, however, I've been using Gerbera almost daily for about 2 years. At first, I used my fingers to apply and blend, but found I was using a ton of product and was having some difficulty getting an application that looked good. I've found the best brush for this blush is the Sonia Kashuk cream blush brush, with the black ergonomically styled handle. The bristles are nice and dense; tapping this brush in the compact twice gives me the perfect amount of blush, which I can blend out slightly with my foundation brush.
Gerbera is a peachy-pink color with a nude tone to it, so it looks natural. I love it. I really, really do. As noted before, I literally wear this everyday for 2 reasons - 1) it's a no-brainer for me to apply now, and 2) I sort of want to use it up. I say sort of, because I'll be sad to finish it, but still, I have 3 (!!) Pot Rouges to get to.

I like the fact that this hasn't dried up at all. It's still the same consistency it was when I started using it, which is awesome considering the compact isn't air-tight. I thought it'd dry out, or start to change texture on me, and it hasn't. It does seem to collect hairs and dust from my brush or the environment, though, so it looks kind of gross, but that's to be expected, I think, for a cream-type product.

Overall, I obviously like this blush. I would recommend it, and certainly plan on replacing it, once I have a need to. I feel it's a bit overpriced, however, considering you can get more for your money from Bobbi Brown.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Tarte Lights, Camera, Lashes! Mascara - Review

I swear I'm not a crazed Tarte fan. I promise! I've just been getting a lot of their stuff recently, and most of it has been pretty good. Originally, I was just going to swap this mascara, however, though my recent acquisitions, I ended up with 3 tubes. I've sold one, used one, and still have one available.
This mascara retails for $19.00, and is only available in the shade black. It's available at Sephora, Ulta, and Tarte's own website, as well as in kits, like those available on QVC. Tarte's website says:
This is what we call a push-up bra for your lashes™ a 4-in-1 (lengthening, curling, volumizing and conditioning) dermatologist tested mascara that gives dramatic, thick, sexy lashes and is clinically proven to increase lash volume by 424%. 
I like super volumizing mascaras that also give some definition. I guess I love drama, and I don't have enough in my own life, so I need to add some to my lashes. I'm happy with the length of my lashes, however.

Lights, Camera, Lashes! claims to do so much, but it sort of fails at at least one of the claims everyday. It's rather inconsistent, though. One day it seems to clump like mad, the next it defines my lashes perfectly, but they don't appear volumized in the least. Some times my lashes appear longer, and other days they don't appear longer at all. I don't believe I'm changing how I apply the mascara in any way, so I'm a little confused.
The brush is okay. It reminds me of the Lashblast brush, only it had fiber-type bristles rather than rubber ones. I really don't like the spikey rubber bristles - they never seen to work well for my lashes (with one notable exception, Phenomen'Eyes). It's a wide brush that slightly tapers to a rather blunt end. It's nothing magical. Like most mascara wands, it tends to suffer from a massive build up of mascara at the tip.

The tube it's self leaves me confused, because you can find this packaged in two ways, one has a faux-croc-ish looking sheath over what I can only assume is plastic tube. The other way is in a plan, rather expected purple tube with some information on it about the product, a much more normal way to package mascara. I don't believe there's any difference between the two, other than the packaging. I've received the mascara both ways in kits, so I don't know. I think it's to match the way the mascara performs - sometimes great, sometimes not-so-much.

I can't really recommend this mascara, since it doesn't provide consistent results. For less money, you can get a mascara, like many of MAC's, or The Falsies Flared, that provide consistently good results.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

MAC Mineralize Skinfinish in Lightscapade - Review

I'll admit, I'm a sucker for MAC MSF. I have LE-fever when it comes to these things. I had the opportunity to swap for Lightscapade, one of the most sought-after highlighters from MAC. It's "the best," not glittery, just a barely-there, glowy, highlight. It's being repromoted in the MAC for Cindy Sherman collection, for anyone who wishes to pick it up at retail, on 09/29/2011.

The best part of this product, sadly, is how it looks in the pan. The only word suitable is serene. It's so gorgeous in the pan, soft swirls of blue, violet, pink, and faint gold (not shimmery or glittery gold, though), with a beige background. I could seriously stare at all day.

The swatch is... disappointing. I don't know what I was expecting, exactly, but this was not it. It's a barely there shimmer on me. Granted, my arm is just about fishbelly shade, but still. On my face skin, it's a whole lot of.... not much. I've used a MAC 109, a NARS Yachiyo, even my fingers, to get this to show up on me, and it doesn't. It's worth noting that I'm a light NC15, and my arm is probably NC10 or lighter.

Since I can't see this on my face, I can't tell when it's worn away. So, I can't comment on the durability of the product.

Overall, this is $29 of... nothing, I guess. It's very, very, very pretty in the pan. So peaceful, delicate, and calming (who knew a baked powder could make me so mellow?), but it's just not worth it.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Chanel Ombre D'Eau Seashore # 747 - Review

I swear, I love Chanel products. Especially their nail polishes... and their eyeshadows... and their blushes are pretty good, too... but, I digress. I love the concept of cream shadows, but they're always a bit of work to make them wear well on me. I need to set them with powder, have UDPP under them, and even then, they may not work - they make like David Copperfield and vanish, taking any other shadows with them.

I tried explaining this to a makeup artist for Chanel a while ago (maybe 2 - 3 years?), and she smiled at me, and said "You need to try these!" She was doing a makeover on me anyway, and used their Ombre D'Eau in Seashore. It's gorgeous. It's a liquid-to-powder, shadow that can be applied over or under other shadows, depending on the kind of finish you're looking for. Oily lids limit you, however, because I have to set this with a powder to get 10+ hours wear.

Packaged like many other brand's lipglosses, you get a short, frosted glass tube. Had I not shaken the tube, you would've seen how these are in the "natural" state. The pigment settles to the bottom of the tube, and you have shake these before using them. The applicator is a doe foot.

Chanel knows how to make everything so classy!

Seashore is a golden-peach color with a metallic bent (and it appears to be discontinued, since it's no longer on Chanel's website). The swatch on the left is unblended, on the right it's blended out a bit. I dab the doe foot on my lid, and then blend a bit with my finger.

The trick with this product is to work quickly, because it sets quickly, and then it's staying put. It lasts through a normal, non-crazy warm day most of the time, meaning for me, it'll stay 8 - 10 hours if unset. If I set with a powder eyeshadow, the wear time is 12 hours or so. What's awesome is that you don't have to wear this sheerly. You can have it on, full strength, and the performance is just as if you applied it sheerly. For most non-powder shadows, I have use a thin layer (like Clinique's old Quick Eyes Cream Shadows), but not with Ombre D'Eau. I bet it's because it's a liquid, not a true cream. It's very runny in the tube, and it looks like it'd be terrible, but I promise it's not!

For $32, you get what seems to be an impossibly small amount of product. But, very little goes a long, long way. I love this product, and have a second color waiting in the wings until I finish up another cream shadow. I can't rave about this product enough!

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Clinique Brush-On Cream Liner - Review

I think I'm a closet Clinique ho or something. I have a ton of their stuff, although it's the eye products that I use. My first non-pencil liner was Clinique's Brush-On Cream liner, simply because it was affordable, and came with a brush (which I used for about a year, believe it or not). I currently own 5 of them, all limited edition or discontued colors (sorry), and am always excited to see what new shades they bring out at holiday time, since that seems to be the only time they introduce new shades.

The formula these have feels unique, to me. It's truly creamy, not like MAC's Fluidlines or Bobbi Brown's Long Wearing Gel Liners, which both, to me, feel gel-like over all. The pigmentation varies by shade, in my experience. Some shades like Violet Luxe and Chocolate Lustre are pigmented and lovely. Others, like Bronze, isn't very pigmented. The good news is these can easily be built up to the pigmentation you like. I like to use my MAC 219 for a smudgey look, and to line my lower lashline. I like to use the MAC 266 for a more precise look.

Violet Luxe is a deep-ish, blue-tinged violet. Bronze is a cooler milk chocolate shot with bronzey gold shimmer. Egyptian is a olive green-gold shimmery tone (super pretty!). Graphite is a silvery grey. Chocolate Lustre is a gorgeous milk chocolate with gold shimmer, a warmer cousin to Bronze. Obviously, I've used Chocolate Lustre the most, with Egyptian coming in second.

Anyway, I love these liners. They're creamy, smudge-able, and wear very well on me. Clinique doesn't stray too far out of the box with their color choices, though. Their core line consists of True Black (black), Deep Brown (dark brown), Smoke Grey (mushroomy taupe), and Black Honey (reddish brown). I used to have True Black, but I got rid of it, because I rarely, if ever, wear black liner. It just looks too dark on my fair skin. I've never owned the others, though, because I had other liners in similar colors, or the colors weren't something I'd like.

For $15.00, I totally think these liners are worth it. They are as good as the other, more popular liners of this type, like MAC Fluidlines and Bobbi Brown Long Wearing Gel Liners, but from Clinique. I wish their core collection was a little more expansive, or that their limited editions were a little more daring.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Etsy Find - Lost in Makeupland, part 4 - Highlighters

This is the final installment of a 4 part series for this seller. Today, we'll focus on Belén's collection of highlighting shades, Faerie, Glow, English Rose and Snow (not a true member, but I use it as a highlight).

Faerie, Glow, and English Rose are available in 3 sizes, sample sized (packaged in a plastic bag for $1.50), a mini-size, 5 gram jar for $5.00, and a full size, 10 gram jar for $8.00. Whipped is technically an eyeshadow, so it is available as a sample in a plastic bag for $1.00, or a full size, 5 gram jar for $5.99. You can buy a sample pack of all of these colors for $4.00, which is a great deal, since the sample sizes are so generous.

Faerie is described as a "warmish peachy pink, works nicely on cool tones if applied very lightly," and appears as a soft neutral peach, if you can believe it. Glow is described as a "neutral golden pink, the warmth of the gold meets with a touch of cold pink," and appears as a warmish glow. English Rose is described as "cool toned mauve-pink," and is decidedly cool-toned pink. Snow is described as an "cold as ice and beautiful as real snow," it can be applied heavily for an opaque white, but it can also be sheered out, and provide a eye-brightening highlight.

Obviously, I'm a gal with yellow undertones. English Rose is not a good highlight color for me. It's still gorgeous, though. Glow and Faerie are easily my two favorites. All of these shades are nicely pigmented, and finely milled. I have plans on purchasing a full size of Faerie with my next order, which will probably be placed once Belén releases the new things she's been holding on to (she's been having some difficulty with a supplier, I believe).

Thursday, August 4, 2011

NYC Liquid Lipshine Gloss - Review

I don't need more lipglosses. I've finished maybe 3 glosses in my whole life, simply because I'll use one for a week, then I'll find something new to use. At this point, I rarely buy expensive glosses (like Chanel, Dior, etc. Chanel because they're uber expensive, and I never finish them before they go bad. Dior because they're uber expensive, and I finished one in less than 2 months with daily use), and will only buy MAC lipglasses or Dazzleglasses if they're truly unique. I'm trying desperately to use up my stash of glosses. But, I'm weak. I need a glossaholic 12 step program or something.

Anyway, when picking up the new Blushable Creme Sticks, I found this gloss in the display, and decided to give their glosses a shot. I mean, NYC's cream blushes are nice, maybe they're glosses are, too. NYC's website says:

- Pure pigments, 3D-effect shine
- Lips feel moisturized
- Creamy and soft texture
- Non-sticky
Key Ingredients:
- Vitamin E formula provides shine and moisturizing feel
I have to ask.... what, exactly, is a "3D-effect?" My lips are three dimensional already... so.... yeah. Anyway, other than that odd claim,  the others are spot-on. My lips feel moisturized, and I'd be so bold as to claim they are moisturized by this gloss. While it's on, anyway. The texture of this gloss is really nice - it's sort of a thinner Dazzleglass. It has that cushy feel of a Dazzleglass, without the thickness. It actually reminds me of MAC's Lipglee's.  I really like it. Because this gloss isn't sticky, you may imagine it's fleeting on the lips. I'm pleased to say, it lasts a while, 2 hours or so. Compare to the last drugstore gloss I tried, that's a feat!

I selected the shade "Pink Cosmo," from the summer collection. Since it's not listed on their website, I assume that it's limited edition. It's a pretty, warm, sparkly pink shade. It's not extremely pigmented, and not glittery. Just sparkly.

I like the packaging for this gloss. Instead of being round, it's oval shaped. So, it doesn't roll off my desk, or end up in some dark corner because it rolled to where I can't find it. You'd think that more brands would recognize the utility of this shape, but I guess not (I specifically chose oval lip balm tubes for the lip balms I make, to prevent roll-age). The applicator is a strange, elongated, bendy doe-foot. I have no aversion to doe-foot applicators, and generally prefer them to brushes, since bristles can get bend backwards, or get messed up in some other way. This one isn't bad. I like that it's shaped differently, since I have fuller lips, which means the standard MAC doefoot doesn't really do a great job of applying gloss, unless I have a mirror to use. I don't really need a mirror to apply this with, because the doe foot is more than long enough to cover the surface of my lips.

When all is said and done, this is a fantastic lipgloss for $2.49. Really. My only real issue is how hard NYC is to come by. The gloss is fine, the price is great, but the availability sucks.