Sunday, March 15th, 2015

ColourPop Cheerio Super Shock Cheek
ColourPop Cheerio Super Shock Cheek

ColourPop Cheerio Super Shock Cheek ($8.00 for 0.15 oz.) is described as a “deep cranberry in a satin finish.” It’s a reddish berry with subtle cool undertones and a gold and fuchsia micro-shimmer. Surratt Beauty Rougeur (P, $32.00) is similar. Make Up For Ever #510 HD Blush (P, $26.00) is less shimmery. Chanel Chamade (67) (P, $38.00) is lighter, brighter. NARS Goulue (P, $29.00) is slightly more muted. Kevyn Aucoin Neolita (P, $37.00) is similar. Bobbi Brown Berry (LE, $26.00) is darker. NARS Soulshine #3 (LE, $29.00) is warmer. NYX Desert Rose (P, $5.00) is less shimmery. Chanel Rouge (LE, $45.00) is darker. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

The formula feels spongy and more like clay or play-doh than your traditional cream blush, which makes it a lot less emollient and even lighter-weight as it tends to feel, look, and blend more like a traditional powder blush than a cream one once the product hits the skin. It’s supposed to have buildable coverage with the most color payoff achieved by applying directly with fingertips and a “sheer, airbrushed effect” when used with a duo fiber brush. It may take a few attempts to get into the ease of using the formula (or you might just find your stride immediately). I’ve found the most foolproof way is to apply with a stippling or duo fiber brush (I like MAC’s 159), especially with the deeper and richer shades like this one. It had semi-opaque coverage when applied with fingers, but it doesn’t get to fully opaque color, if that’s your aim. When I was testing this shade, it seemed easier to get even coverage with a sheerer application. The finish appears a more semi-matte on the skin than shimmery, so I wouldn’t let the shimmer scare you if you gravitate towards mostly matte finishes. On me, the blush lasted for nine hours before fading slightly.

The Glossover

P
product

Cheerio

B+

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

8.5/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

9.5/10

Application

4.5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Saturday, March 14th, 2015

Clinique Pansy Pop Cheek Pop Blush
Clinique Pansy Pop Cheek Pop Blush

Clinique Pansy Pop Cheek Pop Blush ($21.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a brightened, light-medium lavender with a hint of pink and a satiny sheen. Colour Pop Thumper (P, $8.00) is brighter, less shimmery. Colour Pop Mochi (P, $8.00) is pinker. Colour Pop Prenup (P, $8.00) is warmer. NARS Roman Holiday (LE, $29.00) is pinker, brighter. MAC I’m a Lover (P, $23.50) is lighter, pinker. Makeup Geek Secret Admirer (P, $9.99) is lighter. NARS Sex Fantasy (LE, $29.00) is lighter. Milani Delizioso Pink (10) (P, $7.99) is brighter. NARS Gaiety (P, $29.00) is lighter, brighter. MAC Unconventional (LE, $21.00) is lighter. MAC Peony Petal (P, $21.00) is darker, brighter. MAC Full of Joy (P, $21.00) is lighter. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

Oh, I can’t tell you what joy I felt when I saw Clinique released six new shades in the Cheek Pop formula (one of my all-time favorite blush products!). I ordered all of them, but three of them are on back-order, so I don’t know when I’ll have those, but I do have the other three to share! Pansy Pop is up first (seriously, a lavender? of course that’s first!). The texture was soft, smooth and very blendable on the skin, while the finish is softly luminous without being too shimmery or dewy, so it didn’t emphasize pores and gave skin a smoother appearance. It had semi-opaque, buildable coverage, but it was one of the lesser pigmented Cheek Pops I’ve come across. It wore well for eight hours on me before fading.

The Glossover

P
product

Pansy Pop

A-

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

8.5/10

Texture

10/10

Longevity

8.5/10

Application

5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

ColourPop Early Bird Super Shock Cheek
ColourPop Early Bird Super Shock Cheek

ColourPop Early Bird Super Shock Cheek ($8.00 for 0.15 oz.) is described as a “bright red coral in a matte finish.” It’s a brightened, medium-dark pink with subtle warm undertones. It’s more pink than coral, and it seems to look pinker applied than it looks in the pan. Colour Pop Clutch (P, $8.00) is darker, redder (but may appear the same if sheered out). Chanel Crescendo (250) (LE, $45.00) is similar, powder. LORAC Underrated (LE) is lighter. Tarte Irreplaceable (LE, $26.00) is darker. Makeup Geek Love Affair (P, $9.99) is darker. Tarte Fearless (P, $26.00) is similar. Too Faced Melt Into Spring (LE) is warmer. Guerlain Madame Rougit (LE, $67.00) is pinker. Chanel Revelation (63) (P, $38.00) is lighter. theBalm Frat Boy (P, $21.00) is warmer. NYX Peach (P, $5.00) is warmer. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

The Super Shock Cheek formula is supposed to have buildable coverage, where applying with fingertips gives the most amount color payoff while using a duo fiber brush produces a sheerer effect. This is one of the more weakly pigmented shades in the range, as it was semi-sheer to semi-opaque at most. The texture is smooth, velvety, and has that sponge-like consistency that the Super Shock Shadows have–the kind where you can press and prod at it, and it absorbs the shape and is a more malleable product. I find it is creamier than the eyeshadow formula, though. The formula acts and looks more like a powder, though, as it never feels wet or tacky, and it has a thin, almost weightless feel on the skin. It was blendable and had a natural matte finish (didn’t look flat or powdery), and the color had exceptionally long wear of ten hours. It did leave a stain behind very slightly when worn on bare skin. For application tips, please see this post.

The Glossover

P
product

Early Bird

B+

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

7.5/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

10/10

Application

4.5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

Becca Blushed Copper Shimmering Skin Perfector Pressed
Becca Blushed Copper Shimmering Skin Perfector Pressed

Becca Blushed Copper Shimmering Skin Perfector Pressed ($38.00 for 0.28 oz.) is described as a “warm copper infused with rose gold tones.” It’s a muted, medium-dark copper-brown with gold and copper micro-shimmer and pearl. MAC Linda (LE, $21.00) is much lighter, less shimmery. Colour Pop Swift (P, $8.00) is darker, less shimmery. NARS Fervor (Right) (P) is more metallic, redder. Sephora + Pantone Universe Marsala (LE, $25.00) is lighter. LORAC Unapologetic (LE) is lighter. MAC Make You Mine (P, $23.50) is redder, less shimmery. Becca Papaya/Topaz (P, $27.00) is warmer. Chanel Canaille (89) (LE, $45.00) is more muted, redder. NARS Na Pali Coast (P, $39.00) is a cream product, redder. MAC Pleasure Model (LE, $25.00) is less shimmery. Charlotte Tilbury The Climax (P, $40.00) is a touch lighter. Illamasqua Supernatural (P, $24.00) is a cream product. MAC Worldly Wealth (LE, $21.00) is browner. MAC Sweet As Cocoa (P, $21.00) is darker, less shimmery. MAC Stylish Me (LE, $21.00) is darker, redder. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

According to Becca, the formula behind this particular shade “fuses together the soft shimmer of a luminizer with the subtle pigment of the blush.” It actually had mostly opaque color coverage that was blendable to more semi-opaque to semi-sheer coverage, but it starts off rather pigmented if you use a more traditional blush or highlighter brush. I was able to get more subtle results if I used a fan brush, but even a feathery highlight blush laid down strong, noticeable color. I think it is going to work extremely well on medium and darker skin tones as a luminous blush. With the right application, lighter skin tones can use it as well, but it’s not what I would call “subtle pigment,” so keep that in mind when it comes to selecting a tool! I thought that with a fan brush I could get more of the sheen without color, but I still had a fair amount of color on my medium complexion–and that was with barely touching the edges of the fan brush to the pan!

Aside from it being far more pigmented than described, it’s really a lovely product, and I hope Becca will venture into more luminous blush shades in the future. The powder is soft, smooth, and dense while remaining incredibly blendable on the skin for a really diffused, even appearance. Applied with a fan brush, the finish was luminous without emphasizing pores, and when applied with a dense brush, it stopped just shy of emphasizing pores, but it’s shimmery enough that it is a fine line between beautifully glowing and pore-emphasizing. I find that Becca’s highlighters look even better in person with the way the light reflects off the sheen. This shade wore well for nine hours on me before fading.

The Glossover

LE
product

Blushed Copper

A-

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

7.5/10

Texture

9.5/10

Longevity

9.5/10

Application

5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Tuesday, March 10th, 2015

ColourPop Pie Super Shock Cheek
ColourPop Pie Super Shock Cheek

ColourPop Pie Super Shock Cheek ($8.00 for 0.15 oz.) is described as a “true bright neon pink pie in a matte finish.” It’s a brightened, magenta pink with cool, blue undertones and a mostly matte finish–there appears to be a smidgen of micro-shimmer but applied, it looks matte. Colour Pop Homie (P, $8.00) is slightly brighter, more magenta than fuchsia. Colour Pop Pegacorn (P, $8.00) is slightly more fuchsia, shimmery. LORAC Unashamed (LE) is lighter, powder. MAC Sweet Sentiment (LE, $27.00) is more shimmery, more muted, powder. Surratt Beauty Se Pomponner (P, $32.00) is a powder. Makeup Geek Hanky Panky (P, $9.99) is lighter, powder. Urban Decay Savage (P) is a powder. NARS Coeur Battant (LE, $29.00) is darker, powder. Urban Decay Quickie (LE) is lighter, powder. NARS Desire (P, $29.00) is a powder. MAC Florida (LE, $21.00) is similar. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

I’ve tested a few of the new blush shades, and this is the first one to be reviewed (I like to test a few of a new formula prior to posting any reviews, just to have a better “big picture” of where it seems we’re going), so more are on the way. The formula on the Super Shock Cheeks seems to be creamier in comparison to the Super Shock Shadows, though they still have that more sponge-like consistency where you can press and mold the product like clay. According to the brand, coverage is buildable from “natural-looking” to “more intense,” and they specifically state that “fingertips will provide the highest amount of coverage.” On each blush’s product page, the brand suggests using a flat synthetic brush or duo fiber brush with the latter yielding “a more sheer, air brushed effect.”

This is a formula where technique counts. So, how best to apply? It depends on the shade, your skin’s natural texture, the level of coverage you want, and what tool(s) you use to apply the color with. All true with any product, of course, but I felt like there was a bigger learning curve with this formula as a blush. I have been using an assortment of brushes and techniques to apply these as I’ve applied them for testing as well as for just capturing initial face swatches to see what worked best for me. I’ve had good luck with brushes like MAC 159, MAC 188, Real Techniques Setting Brush, and Real Techniques Contour Brush for semi-sheer, buildable coverage that looked well-blended and diffused nicely along the edges. Fingertips work exceptionally well for depositing medium to full coverage and blending edges. For initial application (to get color coverage), dab and pat along the cheek area, don’t swipe. For blending, the key was to use less pressure than you think; a more airy touch is all you need to blend without displacing the color. I didn’t like flat synthetic brushes for applying these, as they tended to streak and were more prone to appearing uneven and blotchy–I would always end up correcting with fingertips. Some shades were less buildable than others, and some of the very lightest and more matte finishes were less forgiving on the skin (a couple seemed less creamy, which might have been a contributing factor).

Most of the blushes look mostly matte to semi-matte applied, even those that have shimmer don’t appear nearly as shimmery applied as they do swatched or in the pan unless you’re wearing them at full, true-to-pan intensity. As I swatched through a lot of them (I still have a few I haven’t photographed yet), several shades overlapped. If you tend to like a subtle application, you may want to stick with the lighter version of the shade, but if you need or like the versatility of having a richer and deeper shade and don’t mind sheering out the color, opt for the deeper version. If you have very strong cool or warm undertones, you may find that the nuance in undertone of two seemingly similar shades may be the make-or-break difference.

Pie had good color coverage that was slightly lighter than the pan color itself, but it had mostly opaque coverage. It was blendable and sheered out to a softer, cool-toned pink. Applied with a stippling brush, it had more of stained appearance on the skin as it was brighter but more translucent. The finish is mostly matte but doesn’t look flat or powdery on the skin, and it looked good on bare skin and over (liquid) foundation. When I tried it over liquid foundation, it doesn’t disturb the underlying base product much, if at all, because it doesn’t have a wet or creamy consistency once it hits the skin. It acts more like a powder product, but it is more forgiving when it comes to diffusing and sheering the color out than really intense powder blushes. On me, the color wore well for nine hours before fading. I think if you wore it at a higher opacity level (and depending on any base products underneath), you might also see slight staining of the skin.

The Glossover

P
product

Pie

A-

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

9.5/10

Application

4.5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Sunday, March 8th, 2015

NARS Dual-Intensity Blush ($45.00 for 0.21 oz.) was an interesting concept, but I think that the texture could have been differentiated a bit more from the eyeshadows, because–as we have learned this year–that what makes a good eyeshadow may not always make a good blush and vice versa. Most blush brushes are less dense and often cut with more tapered fibers compared to a lot of eyeshadow brushes, but the texture of this formula is firmer (like the eyeshadows), so it can require some experimentation with tools and techniques to get decent to good pigmentation out of it.

Secondly, NARS claims that damp application results in a “translucent wash of color,” which is the exact opposite of damp application for their Dual-Intensity eyeshadows (the wet application is described as “mind-blowing impact with dramatic luminous matte and high shine finishes”). These perform very much in line with the eyeshadows with a damp application–they’re more richly pigmented, deeper and more intense, and the finishes are more shimmery, more metallic. Everything about them is absolutely amplified with a damp application, regardless whether one uses their specific brush (which is one of the worst brushes for using these damp), moistened fingertips, misted brush, or dampened sponge.

Funny enough, but one trait of the eyeshadows is they’re supposed to be “a sheer soft touch of sensual color” dry, whereas the blush formula is supposed to have “a bold flush” when applied dry. I’ve found many of their eyeshadows to actually be more pigmented than sheer when applied dry, which was the case with the majority of the blushes. In reality, pigmentation is pretty good either way, it just gets richer and more shimmery damp, but the formula remains more blendable and buildable dry.

They’re now available at NARS and Sephora. I was actually very curious if NARS’ would have different verbiage on their site at launch (perhaps it was a mistake), but their verbiage is the same as the press release sent to me by NARS. As of this morning, Sephora actually states: “Apply these shades wet to achieve a high-impact flush or dry to get a natural-looking glow.”

A few readers have asked if I like them:  so if I take off my reviewer cap a bit and just look at them as your typical powder blush, they’re decent to good, but it depends on the shade and finish.  I’m not in love with the firmer texture, and even dry, some shades still made my skin look worse, but some were really luminous and glowy in a good way.  I’d prefer them as singles as well. I like a few, don’t love any, and would reach for a lot of other formulas first (regardless of claims).

Report Card

Here are all the shades I’ve reviewed ordered from highest scoring to lowest scoring. Click the shade name below to read the full review and/or view the full set of photos and swatches.