Monday, August 6th, 2012

L'Oreal Endless Sea Infallible Eyeshadow
L’Oreal Endless Sea Infallible Eyeshadow

Swimming in an Endless Sea of Disappointment

L’Oreal Endless Sea Infallible Eyeshadow ($7.95 for 0.12 oz.) is a faded cool-toned blue with a hint of aqua-teal. MAC Sky is similar but has a stronger golden sheen. Tarina Tarantino Ozma is much more teal and darker. Urban Decay Shattered is grayer. Guerlain Les Aquas is lighter, bluer. Urban Decay Aquarius is very similar, slightly more aqua than blue. Inglot #413 is more teal.

The shade that most immediately caught my eye when I first received the new shades was Endless Sea, but it was a complete disappointment.  The color payoff is severely lacking, both when used dry as well as wet; as is typically the case, it is more pigmented when used damp–decent pigmentation–it’s still not where it should be. It’s not the rich, intense color that L’Oreal advertises for the formula.

The texture feels a little drier than some of the other shades I’ve tested, which might account for the poor pigmentation.  It doesn’t bind together as smoothly (even when applied dampened), so it has a tendency to look patchy upon application.  I applied Endless Sea on the lid (next to Golden Emerald, which was superb), and it was sad and faded after ten hours.  

Most formulas have a couple of misses, and this one is indeed one of them, but there are some very lovely shades, like Golden Emerald and Smoldering Plum (both reviewed earlier this past week). A cheap product doesn’t mean it’s a bad product–but a cheap product that’s bad is still a waste of your hard-earned money, so I’d avoid this one and opt for one of the better pigmented and better wearing shades mentioned earlier.

For a comparison against Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense, please see this post. As a quick summary, L’Oreal’s colors can be less nuanced/have less depth, and then the wear seems to be a little more inconsistent with L’Oreal (some wearing fantastically, others creasing/fading more rapidly). The way I look at it (assuming you wear primer, because then the wear is usually fine), the more the merrier!  There doesn’t seem to be a lot of overlap between the color ranges, though–they’re not putting out dupes so much as different shades in a similar formula.

The Glossover

P
product

Endless Sea

D
It seemed like it was going to be a stunning shade, but it just lacked the pigmentation to really make it workable and desirable. Whether you use it wet or over a primer, it looks dull, faded, and patchy.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

6/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

5/10

Application

4/5

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, August 4th, 2012

Giorgio Armani #26 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow
Giorgio Armani #26 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow

#26 is More Dazzling Than It Lets On

Giorgio Armani #26 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow ($32.00 for 0.14 oz.) is muted, golden bronze-brown with a golden shimmer-sheen. It’s warm-toned without reading too orange or too red. Urban Decay Chase is slightly redder. theBalm Seductive is similar, a little lighter. Wet ‘n’ Wild Comfort Zone has less shimmer. MAC Soba is a bit less warm. MAC Tempting is darker, more bronzy.

On the surface, it lacks some of the depth and interplay of colors that makes the formula standout in a sea of eyeshadows. In person, it’s a little different–yeah, the color is dupeable–but the finish is absolutely sparkling with winking shimmer and micro-glitter (it doesn’t even feel or look like glitter).  Very glitzy in a no-fallout kind of way; not sure it’s a must-have, because the color is still more common than uncommon, but it’s something worth swatching if you’re near a counter.

The texture is finely-milled, soft, and smooth.  The color payoff was good both dry and wet, though a little darker and smoother when applied wet.  I tested this shade on the inner half of the lid (with #28 on the outer half of the lid), and the wear was impeccable–no creasing, fading, or fall out over an eight hour period.

The Glossover

LE
product

#26

A+
Very glitzy in a no-fallout kind of way; not sure it's a must-have, because the color is still more common than uncommon, but it's something worth swatching if you're near a counter.

Product

10/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9.5/10

Longevity

10/10

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 →

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

L'Oreal Smoldering Plum Infallible Eyeshadow
L’Oreal Smoldering Plum Infallible Eyeshadow

A Very Sultry, Smoldering Plum

L’Oreal Smoldering Plum Infallible Eyeshadow ($7.95 for 0.12 oz.) is a deep, dark, and wickedly intense red-toned burgundy purple with a subtle frosted sheen. It’s a more intense versino of Urban Decay Rockstar. MAC Young Punk is purpler, less burgundy. MAC Dynamic Duo 4 is reminiscent, but less red-toned and matte. MAC Indian Ink is a matte version. Giorgio Armani #2 is slightly richer, blacker, and has red and blue-violet shimmer–so it translates a bit differently. Giorgio Armani #3 has a very reflective sheen that’s more silvery–the purple is a bit grayer, less red-toned.

I love the intensity of this shade, and it even had a fair amount of darkness even when applied dry.  It’s definitely smoother and richer-looking when applied damp/wet, though, but what’s worth noting is that the color will stay that intense even after it dries so long as you use a damp brush to apply the color initially.  The texture is soft, smooth, and finely-milled. It’s not dry at all, and it really has that creamy-powdery feel that’s a hallmark of the L’Oreal Infallible/Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense ranges.

Smoldering Plum wore very well–a solid twelve hours without fading or creasing. The newest released shades seem to have a lot better wear than a couple of the other shades I had tried previously (notably, Perpetual Purple, which was more like a perpetual disappointment).

For a comparison against Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense, please see this post. As a quick summary, L’Oreal’s colors can be less nuanced/have less depth, and then the wear seems to be a little more inconsistent with L’Oreal (some wearing fantastically, others creasing/fading more rapidly). The way I look at it (assuming you wear primer, because then the wear is usually fine), the more the merrier!  There doesn’t seem to be a lot of overlap between the color ranges, though–they’re not putting out dupes so much as different shades in a similar formula.

The Glossover

P
product

Smoldering Plum

A
This is a perfect pick for fall--it's rich, dark, and on-trend for the purple-hued fall/winter season we'll be seeing in the next few months.

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

9.5/10

Texture

10/10

Longevity

10/10

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, August 1st, 2012

Giorgio Armani #27 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow
Giorgio Armani #27 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow

Oh, Giorgio! That’s Just Mauve-velous!

Giorgio Armani #27 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow ($32.00 for 0.14 oz.) is a subdued mauve with hints of plum and muted gold shimmer. MAC Universal Appeal is lighter, pinker. MAC Hypnotiznig is grayer, less pink. NARS Lhasa is darker, smokier. NARS Charade has more purple in it, less plum/mauve, and has a matte finish. Tarina Tarantino Fantastical is almost the same, slightly less plum. MAC Circa Plum has more purple, less red tones. MAC Tendersmoke is similar but less plum.

Looking at the color overall, I think it’s less nuanced than some other shades by the brand (but more nuanced than some of their least impressive–color-wise–shades, too). It’s somewhere in-between full of depth and more readily duped. It’s a gorgeous shade, but judging by the number of similar shades I was able to pull out, it’s not uncommon.

I love when these types of products apply with full color coverage both dry and wet. It just makes it a much more versatile product. When it’s used dry, it is lighter, less burgundy-tinted. When it’s applied damp, it smooths out a wee bit more, and it takes on a deeper mauve/plum coloring.

The texture is finely-milled, soft, and applies smoothly both wet and dry, though slightly smoother when applied wet as the product pulls together better.  When I tested it out for wear, it lasted a full twelve hours with no fading or creasing.

The Glossover

LE
product

#27

A+
Looking at the color overall, I think it's less nuanced than some other shades by the brand (but more nuanced than some of their least impressive--color-wise--shades, too). It's somewhere in-between full of depth and more readily duped. It's a gorgeous shade, but judging by the number of similar shades I was able to pull out, it's not uncommon.

Product

10/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9.5/10

Longevity

10/10

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, July 31st, 2012

L'Oreal Golden Emerald Infallible Eyeshadow
L’Oreal Golden Emerald Infallible Eyeshadow

If the Emerald City Only Sparkled Half as Much!

L’Oreal Golden Emerald Infallible Eyeshadow ($7.95 for 0.12 oz.) is a sparkling, shimmering forest green with an olive-brown base. It has flecks of emerald green micro-shimmer and larger dirty gold shimmer. Tarina Tarantino Wonderful is less green, more olive. Urban Decay Bender has a stronger yellow undertone. Inglot #418 is less olive/yellow-toned. Make Up For Ever #310 is cooler-toned, no yellow or olive base coloring. MAC Humid is less intense, slightly yellower.

This shade sparkles in such an incredible, eye-catching way. There are few products and even less shades that sparkle in such a way; I was truly captivated when I swatched this, and it was as beautiful on the lid as it was on my arm. This is something that anyone who loves green eyeshadow should seriously consider grabbing–and the price point makes it nearly irresistible. It has one of the most gorgeous finishes I’ve come across. Not all L’Oreal Infallibles have this finish (and not all Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadows do either), but it’s an exceptional play on shimmer, sheen, and reflective surfaces.

Golden Emerald works best slightly damp or wet, because the pigmentation and finish really sing there. When it’s applied dry, it’s not quite as intense or as pigmented.  The color payoff is decent to good, but you’ll likely want to apply it over a primer if you plan to use it dry.  What’s nice about this kind of formula is that when you use it wet, it stays looking like that–it doesn’t intensify and then dry and look faded.  That lack of intensity is the only drawback about this particular shade, because the wear is tops–full ten hour wear with no creasing or fading.

For a comparison against Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense, please see this post. As a quick summary, L’Oreal’s colors can be less nuanced/have less depth, and then the wear seems to be a little more inconsistent with L’Oreal (some wearing fantastically, others creasing/fading more rapidly). The way I look at it (assuming you wear primer, because then the wear is usually fine), the more the merrier!  There doesn’t seem to be a lot of overlap between the color ranges, though–they’re not putting out dupes so much as different shades in a similar formula.

The Glossover

P
product

Golden Emerald

A
This is something that anyone who loves green eyeshadow should seriously consider grabbing--and the price point makes it nearly irresistible. It has one of the most gorgeous finishes I've come across.

Product

9.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

10/10

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 →

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Giorgio Armani #25 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow
Giorgio Armani #25 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow

Into the Ashes of Leaves

Giorgio Armani #25 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow ($32.00 for 0.14 oz.) is smoky, blackened-olive green with lighter olive green and antique gold shimmer. MAC Smutty Green is greener, less olive. MAC Vintage Coin is similar but warmer and lighter. Bare Escentuals Speaker Box is browner with more olive and less black in the base color. Estee Lauder Cyber Green is blacker. MAC Greensmoke is a smidgen lighter. MAC Femme Noir is slightly greener but similar to the base color (it has no shimmer). Make Up For Ever #84 comes the closest in color, though it’s a bit less olive-tinted and has a flatter finish.

The color payoff seemed lackluster when applied dry, but it was a little better (decent to good) when applied to the lid with a brush. When applied damp/wet, it’s much better, though–totally opaque, the richness of the blackened base color comes through, and the finish becomes more metallic. When it’s used dry, it has a more muted appearance, because the base color appears more charcoal-like. The color is impressive when used damp or over a primer, and if you only use it dry, you might find it lacking. #25 wore well–a solid twelve hours–with no signs of fading or creasing.

The Glossover

LE
product

#25

A-
A good shade--great, even, if you only plan to use it damp--but it could benefit from just a little more payoff during dry application (which is one of the application methods suggested).

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

8.5/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

10/10

Application

4/5

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 →