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 →

Wednesday, March 11th, 2015

Becca Pearl Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured
Becca Pearl Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured

Becca Pearl Shimmering Skin Perfector Poured ($38.00 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “white pearl.” It’s a neutral-to-cool-toned, shimmery white with a luminous finish. Cle de Peau Pastel (11) (P, $55.00) is less shimmery, powder. Chanel Poudre Signee de Chanel Illuminating Powder (LE, $68.00) is warmer, powder. Chanel Lumiere Sculptee de Chanel Highlighting Powder (LE, $72.00) is less shimmery, powder. See comparison swatches / view dupes.

The formula was lightweight, thin, and lightly emollient; it spread and blended well on the skin, but it didn’t feel wet or tacky so it is less prone to disturbing base products, if you use it on top of other products. I tested and wore it over bare skin per usual, and it works wonderfully that way, along with over and under foundation. This is a shade more suitable for lighter skin tones, especially if you want to wear it at a higher opacity as it does have a stronger white base. It highlights and adds a very soft shimmer-sheen to the skin without adding color nor does it emphasize pores. It could also be used to lighten and add luminosity to a more matte cream blush. The color coverage was mostly opaque–less pigmented compared to other shades I’ve reviewed–but has the same blendability, so it can be applied heavily or easily sheered out. If you prefer a sheerer look, lightly tap onto cheeks with fingertips or a stippling brush. It wore well for eight hours before fading.

The Glossover

P
product

Pearl

A-

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

9.5/10

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 →

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 →