Saturday, February 22nd, 2014

Chanel Jardin de Camelias Illuminating Powder
Chanel Jardin de Camelias Illuminating Powder

Chanel Jardin de Camelias Illuminating Powder ($70.00 for 0.54 oz.) is described as a “sheer ivory … with rosy highlights.” It’s a pale beige with a champagne shimmer-sheen that’s very, very subtle. Kevyn Aucoin Candlelight (P, $44.00) is more shimmery. Chanel Poudre Signee de Chanel Illuminating Powder (LE, $68.00) is more shimmery. Chanel Lumiere Sculptee de Chanel Highlighting Powder (LE, $72.00) is lighter. See comparison swatches.

According to Chanel, their newest limited edition Illuminating Powder is supposed to “delicately [illuminate] the face with an imperceptible halo.” The powder itself is embossed with a camellia flower. It’s a very subtle powder that can easily be dusted all over the face for a softening, lightly brightening and illuminating effect. If you’re someone who has felt like most highlighters are too shimmery, sparkly, or frosty, then this is one to consider, as it’s the very definition of subtle. On the other hand, if you want to use this to yield a more targeted glow on the high planes of the face, it’s so subtle that it might not be enough for your liking. “Delicate” is quite right, and “sheer” is correct to a degree. It’s somewhat buildable if you want to concentrate the illumination on a certain part, but it blends and sheers out as you blend the powder into the skin. The texture is soft, finely-milled, and blendable, while the product itself lasted for eight hours on me.

The Glossover

LE
product

Jardin de Camelias

A

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

10/10

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 →

Saturday, February 1st, 2014

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish
MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish ($30.00 for 0.32 oz.) is described as a “pale pearlized pink.” The one I just purchased from this collection is a peach muted by beige with a frosted finish. The one I have from when it launched in 2009 is distinctly pink, almost cool-toned really. The colors of the veins did not even appear that similar in the pans, as it seems to be more than an issue of a different distribution of the types of colored veins. The texture was soft but powdery, and it will most likely be a highlighter on all but the very fairest of skin tones. It wore well for six hours before it turned patchy and slightly faded along the edges, which is the norm for me when wearing MAC’s Mineralize cheek products. bareMinerals The Many Splendors #2 (LE) is lighter. MAC Amber Glow (LE, $25.00) is less frosted. Le Metier de Beaute Whisper (P, $30.00) is similar. See comparison swatches.

Stereo Rose (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish ($30.00 for 0.32 oz.) is described as a “copper bronze.” It’s a light-medium, warm-toned peach with a frosted, somewhat metallic, sheen. Oh, the difference between this Stereo Rose (again, just purchased from MAC’s website on Thursday AM!) and the one I have from the end of 2012 are like night and day. I used a paper towel to rub off several layers of product from the new version to see if it would get better but no luck. Still a very light peach compared to the deeper pinky-coral of previous years. The texture is soft but on the dry side, so it can be powdery, and it wore well for six hours before showing some fading. It is a couple of shades darker than Perfect Topping #2. bareMinerals The Many Splendors #2 (LE) is lighter. MAC Amber Glow (LE, $25.00) is less shimmery. Le Metier de Beaute Whisper (P, $30.00) is a touch lighter. See comparison swatches.

Mineralize Skinfinishes can differ from pan to pan, as it is a mix of different shades and veins, so sometimes there is variance, but I think these go beyond variance. The pans of Perfect Topping don’t look alike at all; we have a mix of lilac, pink, and peachy-beige compared to beige, peach, and a murky lavender. Swatched, the original is definitely pink and on the cooler side. The differences between the two Stereo Roses in the pan seems less obvious–the newly released version appears lighter and less pinky-red, and the most obvious missing component is the coppery veining. However, when swatched, it is such a huge, huge difference.

It’s extremely frustrating that MAC re-releases sought after products, and they’re different. (As an aside, Lily White pigment is also very different from the previously released Lily White.) It is inexcusable to see Stereo Rose so drastically different from when it was released a mere year ago. If MAC can’t keep the color same, they should name it something different – that’s all there is to it. They put out an endless stream of new shades and products with minor differences from something they’ve previously released, but they have new names, so at least no one’s buying it off of older swatches or from previous hype.

The Glossover

LE
product

Perfect Topping (2014)

B-

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

6.5/10

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!
LE
product

Stereo Rose (2014)

B-

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

6.5/10

Application

5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Monday, January 20th, 2014

NARS NARSissist Cheek Kit
NARS NARSissist Cheek Kit

NARS NARSissist Cheek Kit ($49.00 for 0.24 oz.) includes three cheek products–a highlighter, blush, and bronzer. I can’t tell you how frustrating it was to start photographing and swatching this only to realize that lo and behold, it’s Orgasm and Laguna yet again. NARS has a full range of blushes, and even more, a lot of them are amazing. I wish NARS would work on introducing fans to new shades rather than throwing the same two at us over and over again. If you picked up the One Night Stand palette over the holidays, you already have all three shades within that palette. The permanent versions of Orgasm and Laguna that I have are both softer, less stiff,  and easier to work with than the palette versions included here. I didn’t care for the brush; it was somewhat scratchy and rough against the skin. I used it for application, and it agitated the skin on my cheeks to subtle but reddened bumps (something I experience with MAC’s 129 as well).

In terms of value, it’s hard to really pinpoint it, since you are getting a brush with it. If we just pretend the brush isn’t part of the equation, it works out to be $204.17/oz. as compared to $181.25/oz. for a full-sized blush (and $128.57/oz. for full-sized Laguna). You can also purchase a duo of Orgasm/Laguna for $41 (or $117.14/oz., as it contains 0.35 oz. — more than this palette in total!), or the mini-sized version for $24 (0.17 oz. total, or $141.18/oz.).

Devotee is a pale, pink-tinged beige with a frosted finish. The texture is soft, lightweight, and easy to blend. It had buildable color payoff to about semi-opaque, but it is designed to be a highlighter than a blush. I was surprised, but it just barely emphasizes pores, and if you really blend it out a lot, it becomes very glowy and luminous without the emphasis. It wears six and a half hours on me, which is short of average. Urban Decay Naked (P, $29.00) is similar. Kevyn Aucoin Candlelight (P, $44.00) is warmer. NARS Debbie Harry Highlighter (LE, $29.00) is cooler-toned. See comparison swatches.

Orgasm is described as a “peachy pink with golden shimmer.” It’s a warm, medium pink with a stong golden shimmer-sheen. Too Faced Peachy Keen (LE) is similar. Guerlain Blush G (LE, $65.00) is also similar. Milani Dolce Pink (P, $6.49) is very similar. Guerlain Peach Boy #2 (P) is slightly less pink. Benefit Sugarbomb (P, $28.00) is softer. See comparison swatches.

Laguna is a medium-dark tan brown with warm, orange-yellow undertones and a golden shimmer-sheen finish. I reviewed this in full here. I find the quality of the Laguna in this palette to be the same as it was in the previous palette I tried (NARS Hearts New York); the quality of the individual pan is slightly higher. It lasts well for eight hours, had good color payoff, and a fairly soft texture. Urban Decay Toasted is darker, browner. MAC Lush Light Bronze is warmer. MAC Refined Golden is browner, darker. MAC Soft Sand is slightly warmer, lighter. Burberry Summer Glow is more yellow-toned. See comparison swatches.

The Glossover

LE
palette

NARSissist Cheek

B+

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

8/10

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!
LE
product

Devotee

B+

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

7/10

Application

5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
P
product

Orgasm

B

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

8.5/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

8/10

Application

4.5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Click to Reveal More Glossovers!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Tuesday, January 14th, 2014

theBalm Cindy-Lou Manizer
theBalm Cindy-Lou Manizer

theBalm Cindy-Lou Manizer ($24.00 for 0.30 oz.) is described as a “soft peachy-pink highlighter.” It’s a soft, pinky-peach–but I’d actually call it rose gold–with a frosted sheen. bareMinerals The Many Splendors #2 (LE) is lighter. bareMinerals The Magic Moment (LE, $26.00) is very similar. MAC Talk of the Town (LE, $25.00) is darker, less peach. Benefit Rockateur (P, $28.00) is not quite as shimmery, darker. MAC Adored (LE, $30.00) is pinker. MAC Lust (LE, $30.00) is pinker, more metallic. See comparison swatches.

You may have heard of Mary-Lou Manizer. This is a very similar product, just in another shade. It adds luminosity, warmth, and an overall glow wherever it is applied. It can be used on cheeks, as well as on lids and the rest of the face, if desired. On my medium complexion, it adds subtle rosy, bronzy warmth but not a lot of obvious color, along with a glowing, luminous sheen. On fairer complexions, I would expect that this could be used as a subtle blusher in addition to being a highlighter. It doesn’t have a chalky or white base, so it should work as a highlighter on deeper complexions. The finish is high-shine but forgiving, so it doesn’t emphasize pores. It lasted for eight and a half hours on me before starting to show signs of fading. This powder had such a soft, buttery, silky texture that it was easy to apply and blend, and it’s very, very pigmented–a little goes a long way.

The Glossover

P
product

Cindy-Lou Manizer

Temptalia Recommends
A

Product

10/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

10/10

Longevity

9/10

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, January 12th, 2014

NARS Adelaide Illuminator
NARS Adelaide Illuminator

NARS Adelaide Illuminator ($30.00 for 1.10 fl. oz.) is described as a “shimmering lavender pink.” It’s a lightly cool-toned, light-medium pink with pink and white shimmer/sheen, plus silver glitter. Giorgio Armani No. 08 (P, $59.00) is similar in type (also a liquid) but is a smidgen lighter and has no glitter. NARS New Order (P, $29.00) is a powder and appears lighter swatched, but the effect is similar on. Bobbi Brown Lilac Rose (LE, $42.00) is also a powder and is a darker, more noticeable rose with a stronger metallic sheen. See comparison swatches.

If you’re unfamiliar with NARS’ Illuminators, they’re supposed to “light the skin from within.” They’re “deceptively sheer, decidedly luminous.” The formula can be applied all-over the face, used as traditional highlighter, and can be worn mixed with, over, or under foundation. With the amount of glitter (plus, the size), I didn’t like it mixed with foundation, because the bits of glitter all over the face looked more like random dirt particles at a glance–unless you stood in the sunlight, and then you twinkled here and there. In order to keep the color from adding a pink tint, you use just a very, very little amount. I had the best results when patted over cheeks with my fingertip and blended, as it gave a very light pink flush, luminous sheen, and then glittery sparkles. There was some emphasis of pores. If you don’t like glitter in your blush or highlighter, then I would skip this shade, because it is a noticeable amount. On cheeks, it remained apparent for six hours and then started to disappear.

The Glossover

LE
product

Adelaide

B

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

7/10

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, January 2nd, 2014

Guerlain Clair (02) Meteorites Pearls
Guerlain Clair (02) Meteorites Pearls

Guerlain Clair (02) Meteorites Pearls ($60.00 for 0.88 oz.) is described as a “harmony of green … white … and champagne pearls.” Clair (02) contains “green pearls for extra redness correction,” along with “white pearls to reflect the light” and “champagne pearls to adapt to the skin and gently illuminate it.” It also contains three colors that are the base of all the Meteorites (mauve, pink, and yellow). In general, this combination of colors and the way the powder swatches and applies to the skin, it seemed rather brightening. It softened the look of skin (primarily by smoothing out pores), brightened, and added a very, very subtle radiance.

The effect is lovely, and I’ve been a long-time fan of the Meteorites range; as they always improve the look of the skin and making skin appear healthier, more radiant, smoother, and lovelier.  It works best as a finishing powder–it’s not a traditional highlighter, and it’s not a setting powder.  If you use a setting powder or more matte foundation, finishing powders help to add back some of the luminosity that gets lost by a more matte finish without leaving the skin looking too dewy.  If you go on in wanting something to highlight cheek bones and high planes of the face, you’ll be disappointed. This gets dusted all-over the face.  I would say skip the Meteorites brush; I will do a review of the revamped brush released for spring later on, but in short, it’s unnecessary for applying Meteorites, and I thought it was a little rough/scratchy.

Guerlain has re-released their famous Meteorites Pearls with their Meteorites Blossom Collection. The formula and packaging have both undergone a revamp. The tin has the same size, shape, and feel as the last iteration released in 2010–the embellishments and patterns are different. The formula is supposed to have “softer” pearls that “allow for an even easier application and a more visible effect with every brush stroke.” There are three shades, this one, along with Medium (03) and Dore (04). I only have Clair (02), but I wasn’t able to find any noticeable or visible differences (for better or worse).

This seems to replace Teint Rose. Worth noting is that they were previously priced at $58 and contained 1.05 oz. and now are $60 a pop and only 0.88 oz., which is a squeeze on both ends. I didn’t notice any difference between Clair (02) and Teint Rose; the texture, feel, appearance–all the same. In general, Meteorites, once applied, tend to look more similar than not. On very fair skin, any differences may be more amplified but still quite subtle, and on deeper skin tones, any of the more brightening shades may have a tendency to look chalky or ashy.

The Glossover

P
product

Clair (02)

A

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

10/10

Longevity

9/10

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 →