Tuesday, March 10th, 2015

Becca Topaz Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured
Becca Topaz Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured

Becca Topaz Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured ($38.00 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “golden bronze pearl.” It’s a rich, gold-shimmered, copper-brown with warm, yellow undertones and a luminous shimmer-sheen finish. Kevyn Aucoin Tropical Days (P, $48.00) is lighter, less warm-toned, powder. Bobbi Brown Bronze Glow (LE, $45.00) is a powder, warmer, lighter. Becca Topaz (P, $38.00) is more shimmery, powder. Marc Jacobs Beauty Close-Up #3 (LE) is lighter, less shimmery. Disney by Sephora Golden Sands (LE, $55.00) is warmer, powder. MAC Golden Elixir (LE, $31.00) is sheerer, liquid. theBalm Betty-Lou Manizer (P, $24.00) is browner, powder. NARS Laguna (P, $39.00) is browner, less shimmery. MAC Gilty Bronze (LE, $29.50) is darker, less golden. MAC Global Glow (P, $30.00) is lighter, powder. Estee Lauder Topaz Chameleon (LE, $42.00) is similar in color, powder. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

The texture is lightweight, moderately emollient, and creamy enough to blend out easily so you can achieve whatever opacity level you want but not so prone to sheering out that you can’t get opaque color. On fair to medium skin tones, this will add visible color and a shimmery luminosity to the skin, though you can blend it out enough where it adds only a slight bit of warmth. The finish is just glowing without being too dewy or shimmery, but it’s still noticeable. It’s very comparable in color to the Pressed version, though the Pressed appears more shimmery and reflective, giving it a lighter appearance overall. I don’t have the liquid (but I purchased it–just hasn’t arrived yet) to compare it to. As I mentioned in my initial review of this formula, the Pressed will give the highest shimmer coverage with excellent color coverage, while the Liquid is sheer and has the least shimmery finish (more of a dewy finish). It wore well on bare skin and lasted for eight hours before fading a bit. It also works patted or layered over foundation, and I would recommend using fingertips or a duo-fiber brush with a light-handed application, depending on what type of base products you have underneath.

The Glossover

P
product

Topaz

Temptalia Recommends
A

Product

10/10

Pigmentation

10/10

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 →

Monday, March 9th, 2015

Becca Moonstone Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured
Becca Moonstone Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured

Becca Moonstone Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured ($38.00 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “pale gold.” It’s a soft, light-medium gold with warm undertones and a luminous sheen. Estee Lauder Courreges (LE, $32.00) is lighter, powder. Tarte Champagne (LE) is lighter, powder. Becca Moonstone (P, $38.00) is very similar, powder. theBalm Mary Lou-manizer (P, $24.00) is darker, powder. Bobbi Brown 24 Karat (P, $42.00) is darker, powder. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

“Poured” is probably not the best way to describe this product, as it’s not really intuitive; it is a cream highlighter. Here is a breakdown of the other versions of this product: Pressed – $38/0.28 oz. and Liquid – $41/1.7 fl. oz.). The pressed version is the most shimmery and has the most color intensity, while the liquid version is lightest in weight and sheerest of the three. For traditional highlighting, I personally prefer the pressed as it is easiest to use and wears the longest, and for all-over illumination, I like mixing the liquid with moisturizer or foundation. However, the pressed versions can be rather shimmery, so if you’re someone who has loved the colors and concept of the pressed compacts but have found it to be too shimmery for your liking, the cream version is an excellent in-between option. It is also a better version if you have drier or more textured skin, as the shimmer is smoother and more pearl-like than frost-like. I’m hoping to do some comparisons soon, but I don’t own all of the products so I am working on that.

The Poured formula is supposed to have “high color payoff” with a “smooth, creamy finish” and “ultrafine pigment pearls.” It was actually quite pigmented with mostly opaque coverage, which I wasn’t sure it was going to be, and once you brush at the product, the color tends to lighten a bit. I liked to pat the cream highlighter along the tops of the cheekbones with a fingertip or with a tapered, duo fiber brush (I used one by Real Techniques) and then blend it together for a seamless golden sheen. The texture is thin, lightweight with an emollient, creamy feel, so it is easily sheered out or blended on the skin. It works on bare skin, under foundation (though, as you might expect, it will depend on the type and coverage of your foundation), and over foundation with success. It didn’t cause foundation to breakdown or separate as it was being applied. My skin is normal at the moment, and it lasted for eight and a half hours before it started to fade and move.

The Glossover

P
product

Moonstone

A-

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

9.5/10

Texture

9/10

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 →

Wednesday, March 4th, 2015

MAC Summer Opal Beauty Powder
MAC Summer Opal Beauty Powder

MAC Summer Opal Beauty Powder ($28.00 for 0.39 oz.) is described as a “light bronze with golden shimmer.” It’s a light, golden peach with warm undertones and a soft, frosted finish. Kevyn Aucoin Starlight (P, $44.00) is darker. Bobbi Brown Pink Glow (LE, $45.00) is lighter. Benefit CORALista (Palette) (P, $28.00) is warmer. Becca Guava/Moonstone (P, $27.00) is darker. Becca Fig/Opal (P, $27.00) is darker. MAC Stereo Rose (2014) (LE, $30.00) is peachier. MAC Perfect Topping (2014) (LE, $30.00) is pinker. bareMinerals The Many Splendors #2 (LE) is lighter. Becca Rose Gold (LE, $38.00) is darker. Urban Decay Glint (LE) is more sparkly. MAC Soft & Gentle (P, $30.00) is less peach. Le Metier de Beaute Whisper (P, $30.00) is more shimmery. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

MAC describes it as a “subtle luminescent glow” with a “micro-fine” and “silky” texture that has “sheer” coverage. It had semi-sheer color coverage when I applied it to the skin, but it seemed buildable if you wanted greater warmth/shimmer. The texture feels smooth, but it’s thinner and drier with the powder having a firmer press overall, though it didn’t seem stiff to me–I didn’t have any problems getting the highlighter onto the skin even with my softest natural hair brushes. It has enough shimmer in it to be luminous and lightly frosted, and it very slightly emphasized pores on my skin. With my medium skin-tone, it added a subtle warmth and sheen, but fairer skin tones may see a greater color impact and deeper skin tones may find it doesn’t add warmth, just shimmer. It wore well for eight hours before fading on me.

P.S. — This collection has gone really quickly online, unfortunately, so your best bet may be to find a local store that carries it, but I would recommend calling prior, as the distribution is “select locations,” but I don’t have any specific location information to pass on.

The Glossover

LE
product

Summer Opal

B+

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

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 →

Sunday, March 1st, 2015

Estee Lauder x Courreges Iridescent Ball Highlighter
Estee Lauder x Courreges Iridescent Ball Highlighter

Estee Lauder x Courreges Iridescent Ball Highlighter ($26.00 for 0.11 oz.) is a sheer wash of champagne sheen. Kevyn Aucoin Candlelight (P, $28.00) is less shiny. Burberry Nude Radiance No. 01 (P, $48.00) is thinner, liquid. NARS 413 BLKR (P, $30.00) is more shimmery. Illamasqua Aurora (P, $24.00) is more shimmery. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

The product’s description is confusing, because in one breath, it’s described as an “iridescent powder gelee,” which is then followed by the term “sensorial cream.” To be totally clear, this is like a very firmly-packed cream–think like a lipgloss that’s been put into pan-form. It’s not at all powder-like, and it doesn’t dry down at all, so it remains shiny and glossy on the skin. If you prefer a more matte finish or lightly luminous highlight, this probably isn’t a product for you, because it is shiny and can look oily as much as it looks glossy. It’s not a product that worked well over foundation and only seemed suitable on bare skin (the latter of which is what I test wear for, but with something like this, I also play with it to see how it would react with base products under it), as over foundation, it tends to break down base products more quickly. It lasts for six and a half hours and migrates slightly over time (so the area that I highlighted got larger as the day goes on).

It doesn’t have underlying pigment in the base, but it has champagne shimmer that translates into more of a sheen, even though in the pan, it looks more beige/champagne. It’s very sheer when used, and the only way to get sheer to semi-sheer coverage is to pat the product onto the skin with fingertips and then only blend the edges with a soft touch. Otherwise, the product sheers out to nothing but a wet-looking sheen. In practice, it is more shine than shimmer, more shine than color. Estee Lauder said it could be used “dotted onto cheeks for an allover polished glow,” which I think would be a very specific look as it would give the skin a wet/oily sheen wherever it is applied (but might be nice for drier skin types), which can work when it’s done on high planes, but it is easy to go overboard if you apply it everywhere! The texture is thin, somewhat spreadable but really benefits from the warmth of fingertips rather than brush for good application. It’s not really tacky, but my hair will get stick to it (as will a stray dog hair, found that out as well!).

The brand could have described the color/coverage of this product better, because I think knowing that is necessary so anyone who purchases knows what they’re getting themselves into. In the press release, Courreges was inspired by his desire to “let the light into my clothes” when making this product. This is absent in Sephora’s description, but the press release seems to indicate that the coverage is something in the sheerer realm (certainly opaque, as light wouldn’t come through), though it isn’t totally clear where it’s supposed to fall, and it falls on the very, very sheer part of the spectrum. Descriptions like these (and lack of more specific ones) are what makes rating more difficult, and I’ve tried to weigh the idea that “this isn’t supposed to be opaque” with “but this is almost clear,” but sheer and clear are quite different to me. (Wouldn’t it be nice if brands used a 1-5 opacity system?!)

The pan is small, and it is hard to get some brushes in it with ease. Something about seeing the pan’s rim combined with the packaging felt cheap to me, but that’s a very subjective observation, so some may love it and others may feel the same. The amount contained in the pan seems small, but there aren’t a lot of products like this on the market to compare size with. I honestly think that a liquid highlighter (like Kevyn Aucoin’s or Becca’s) would be a better investment, but both will give a must less shiny finish.

The Glossover

LE
product

Iridescent Ball

D+

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

6/10

Texture

7/10

Longevity

6/10

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 →

Friday, February 27th, 2015

Estee Lauder x Courreges Illuminations Face Powder
Estee Lauder x Courreges Illuminations Face Powder

Estee Lauder x Courreges Illuminations Face Powder ($32.00 for 0.24 oz.) is described as a “glowing, otherworldly” powder with a “burst of pure light.” It’s a brightened, golden champagne with a frosted, metallic sheen. Tarte Champagne (LE) is slightly lighter. Becca Opal (P, $38.00) is darker. Becca Moonstone (P, $38.00) is a smidgen lighter. theBalm Mary Lou-manizer (P, $24.00) is slightly darker. Bobbi Brown 24 Karat (P, $42.00) is darker. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

Sephora gave early access to VIB Rouges to the new collaboration collection between Estee Lauder and Courreges, and this particularly product went very quickly (it’s not even listed on the site any more, but I’m hoping that it’ll reappear when the collection is fully launched as well as be available at other retailers and at counters). The texture is a lot like a baked powder product (think MAC Mineralize products) with a soft, smooth, but almost dry, feeling to the touch, though it doesn’t look dry on the skin. It had good color coverage that was easily blended and diffused on the skin, and for a really ethereal look, could be applied with a feathery touch and fan brush for a mere dusting of sheen. Applied with a more traditional highlighting brush, the finish can veer too metallic and emphasize pores slightly, but for as high-shine as it is, I was surprised that it didn’t make pores look glaringly obvious. It lasted for seven hours on me before fading.

The Glossover

LE
product

Courreges

B+

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

7.5/10

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, February 7th, 2015

MAC Mystery Princess Beauty Powder
MAC Mystery Princess Beauty Powder

MAC Mystery Princess Beauty Powder ($25.00 for TBA oz.) is described as a “pink beige with silver shimmer.” It’s a sparkling, cool-toned beige with a white base and a metallic, frosted sheen. MAC also described this as “matte” in the press release, but it is definitely not that, so my guess is that was misprint/mistake. Burberry Nude Radiance No. 01 (P, $48.00) is warmer, liquid. Bobbi Brown Pink Glow (LE, $45.00) is slightly darker. Cle de Peau Delicate Pink (14) (P, $55.00) is less shimmery. Cle de Peau Pastel (11) (P, $55.00) is less shimmery, lighter. NARS Devotee (LE, $29.00) is similar. Urban Decay Luminous (P, $29.00) is warmer. MAC Too Chic (LE, $24.00) is less sparkly. MAC Snowglobe (LE, $24.00) is less sparkly. MAC Light Sunshine (LE, $24.00) is less sparkly. Chanel Poudre Signee de Chanel Illuminating Powder (LE, $68.00) is lighter. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

It’s not quite as sparklly as Coupe d’Chic, but the texture of the powder felt similar–dense, textured from the shimmer/sparkle content, but still fairly smooth. This one didn’t emphasize pores for me, though it’s metallic enough that if you’re more concerned about pore-size, you might want to try it in person if you can. It blended easily, and I had less issue with the sparkles getting all-over during application, but they do travel throughout wear. This is one of the more shimmery Beauty Powders I can recall, and it really felt and applied like the Iridescent Pressed Powder, but this shade was slightly less sparkly/glittery. It wore well for seven and a half hours on me before fading.

The Glossover

LE
product

Mystery Princess

B+

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

8/10

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 →