Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

Dior DiorAddict Crystal Gloss
Dior DiorAddict Sweet Peach Crystal Gloss

Dior DiorAddict Crystal Gloss – Where’d you go?

Dior launched a new gloss for summer, and it actually prompted today’s question about sheer lipgloss. Dior DiorAddict Crystal Gloss ($27.00 for 0.21 fl. oz.) is described as a “jelly gloss” that is “lightly tinted in vivid summer shades for shiny, radiant lips.” The “vinyl texture” is supposed to deliver volume to lips along with long-lasting hydration. There are four shades, two are translucent (Sweet Peach and Sweet Rose) while two are sparkling (Luminescent Peach and Luminescent Rose).

The description in itself is a contradiction, because there is no tint to these when swatched or worn. First, these are “lightly tinted” (but they’re not) and translucent (kind of, but not quite).  These are more transparent than translucent–it should be sheer and allow light to pass through but in a diffused manner. I specifically tried Luminiscent Peach (037) and Sweet Peach (047), and except for the shimmer in Luminiscent Peach, the two are the same in color (or lack thereof). They are completely clear when worn (I didn’t even bother with lip swatches, because as soon as I tested them, I could tell!).

Crystal Gloss is a scent-free formula with a very thick consistency–it has a thick, gel-like feel that’s cushiony on the lips but a little tacky. Despite the thickness, it does not feel as heavy as you would expect, but it is more noticeable on and heavier than your average lipgloss. It slides around quite a bit, and I find I need to reapply every two hours (glosses usually wear an average of three to four hours on me). They are comparable to Chanel’s Gloss Fluos from last year, but I didn’t find these to wear as well or as long–and at least the Gloss Fluos were tinted.

The glosses are moisturizing while you wear them but don’t impart as much hydration as I’d like over time (lip balms, generally, seem more effective than this gloss at that). They do deliver impeccable high-shine whether worn alone or layered over a lipstick–just don’t expect any color if you happen to pass by them, because they look rather different in the tubes than when swatched or applied.

This product lost points pretty much across the board, because it didn’t fully meet its moisturizing claims, falls short of “lightly tinted,” and wears away after two hours (which is below average).  A sheer gloss that’s not even sheer but clear always makes for a difficult rating experience!

The Glossover

coming-soon

Dior DiorAddict Crystal Gloss Review, Photos, Swatches

C
The best part of this gloss is the high-shine finish it has when applied, but it is not moisturizing enough to impart the "long-lasting" hydration as promised. I'm not a fan of misleading tubes--I'd rather it be sheer in the tube than fluorescent orange if it's actually going to be sheer!

Product

7.5/10

Pigmentation

6/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

7/10

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 →

Friday, July 29th, 2011


Bobbi Brown Bare Sparkle High Shimmer Lip Gloss

Bobbi Brown Bare Sparkle High Shimmer Lip Gloss

Bobbi Brown Bare Sparkle High Shimmer Lip Gloss ($23.00 for 0.24 fl. oz.) is described as a “champagne with pearl.” High Shimmer Lip Glosses are supposed to have “light-catching shimmer with lasting, non-sticky shine” that will “moisturize, condition, and protect lips.” All of Bobbi Brown’s lipglosses now feature a doe-footed applicator (and they’re all a whopping 0.24 fl. oz. now).

Bare Sparkle is silver and champagne glittered gloss with flecks of copper thrown in, and all three hues of micro-glitter are suspended in a–virtually–colorless base. The way these sparkle reminds me of Chanel Glossimers–less color but lots of shine and glitz. As far as I can infer from the description, these are expected to run sheer in color.  It is easily duped, because ultimately it’s shimmer and no distinguishable color (just look in the Sheer Lipgloss gallery, and there are dozens of similar shades).

The formula is medium-thickness, and it applies evenly without trouble (probably helped by the fact there isn’t any real color!). It’s non-sticky, but it wears around four hours for me.  It smells like mint, but it’s not overwhelming or sweet, though there is no noticeable taste.  It wears well, and it doesn’t dry out lips–a little moisturizing, not ultra hydrating or a replacement for a real lip balm.

The most surprising element about this gloss is how noticeable, yet fine, the glitter particles are. Often, glosses chocked full of glitter are fun to wear initially, but the aftermath of traveling and/or gritty leftover glitter makes them a nuisance as they wear away. These are so much better! I didn’t experience any wayward glitter as it faded away (aka, I didn’t find glitter that was once in my gloss on my nose!), and it never felt gritty or rough, even as the gloss itself waned.

The Glossover

coming-soon

Bobbi Brown Bare Sparkle High Shimmer Lip Gloss Review, Photos, Swatches

A-
Bare Sparkle is about as sheer in color as one can get with a gloss, but it packed with a ton of sparkle and shine--but not in a way that's overdone or gaudy. If you like Chanel Glossimers, I think you'd like these--or at least they'd be worth a look-see!

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

9/10

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, July 24th, 2011


NARS Oasis Lipgloss

NARS Oasis Lipgloss

NARS Oasis Lipgloss ($24.00 for 0.28 oz.) is described as a “sparkling pink champagne.” Is this really what one thinks of with the description of “pink champagne”? Am I alone when I look at the swatch and read the description and feel like it’s not really fitting? It’s a semi-sheer plummy pink with flecks of gold shimmer and a high-gloss shine. This shade was originally part of a Sephora-exclusive set of blush-inspired glosses and has made a reappearance in the fall collection.

NARS Lipglosses are supposed to be comfortable, glossy, and non-sticky.  I don’t find these completely non-sticky; I wouldn’t go out of my way and say they’re sticky, but there is a little tackiness there.  They are comfortable to wear, and the texture spreads evenly across the lips.  Though in the past, these glosses have smelled plastic-like, I didn’t notice any scent or taste with Oasis.  I only achieved three hours of wear with this shade.

The Glossover

P
product

Oasis

B
This is a flattering color across skin tones, and it works well for autumn, where darker lip colors become more popular, but it is still subtle and work-safe.

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

8/10

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 →

Sunday, July 17th, 2011


Chantecaille Patina Brilliant Lipgloss

Chantecaille Brilliant Lipgloss: Patina

Chantecaille Patina Brilliant Lipgloss ($32.00 for 0.10 oz.) is semi-opaque berry red with subtle and muted gold micro-shimmer. The color applied more evently than Glaze, but it still had a slightly patchy look to it when worn. The consistency is gel-like, so it has some cushion and glides on easily, and it doesn’t feel sticky. I didn’t notice any scent or taste when I wore it either.

Brilliant Lipgloss is supposed to be a hydrating, long-lasting formula that finishes with brilliant shine. It is also has botanical microspheres to plump lips without stinging. It comes with a brush-type applicator, and one pull provides enough product for a single application. I do not find the formula long-lasting or plumping; it lasts three to four hours (which is about average for gloss on my lips), and I didn’t detect any plumping at all. The glossy shine will naturally give lips a fuller appearance, but nothing about the gloss made my lips look any fuller than they do with any shiny gloss. It is moisturizing, though, which makes it a more comfortable gloss to wear.

NYX Burgundy is a little redder, less berry, and more opaque. MAC Ban This! is a bit similar, but it’s more opaque and berry-based, as well as it has fuchsia as opposed to gold shimmer.

For a more in-depth review of the formula and product claims, please see my original review here! :)

The Glossover

coming-soon

Chantecaille Patina Brilliant Lipgloss Review, Photos, Swatches

C
When worn, it doesn't feel like a C-rated lipgloss at all, but the lack of plumping results coupled with average wear (as opposed to long-lasting wear) brought down an otherwise good lipgloss.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

7/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

7/10

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, July 16th, 2011


Chantecaille Glaze Brilliant Lipgloss

Chantecaille Brilliant Lipgloss: Glaze

Chantecaille Glaze Brilliant Lipgloss ($32.00 for 0.10 oz.) is a hydrating, long-lasting formula that finishes with brilliant shine. It is also has botanical microspheres to plump lips without stinging. Chantecaille received a fair amount of attention (and sales) when it was revealed Angelina Jolie wears both Love and Charm regularly. I specifically bought more pigmented shades (the other I bought was Patina) from Chantecaille’s line-up, but a good portion of the range is on the sheerer side (which both Love and Charm are).

Glaze is a soft red with gold shimmer. It’s semi-opaque, but I find it’s difficult to get the color to look perfectly even. Initially, it looks decent, but if your lips touch at all, the gloss slides and moves and you end up with a more uneven look–this is totally what happened to me when I took photos!  It comes with a brush-type applicator, and one pull provides enough product for a single application.

The formula is just the right consistency of thick and thin, and it has a very gel-like feel so it is non-sticky and glides easily across lips. I didn’t detect any scent or taste, and Glaze lasted four hours when I wore it. The color blots off when drinking, but it hangs out well enough for four hours (despite drinking a cup of coffee)–three to four is average for me for a gloss, though, so I would not describe this as long-lasting as per their claim. I didn’t see any plumping effect, though–the fullness of my lips looked the same as when I wear any shiny gloss. I did find it more moisturizing than the average lipgloss.

The real disappointing part of this gloss is how little each tube contains. At $32, I think these invite comparison to Chanel’s Glossimers (which are $28.50), but Chantecaille’s gloss comes with only 0.10 oz. of product, whereas Chanel’s has 0.19 oz. (I’d also like to know why it lists it as “1 oz.” when 3ml is the equivalent of 0.10 oz.) Curiously, between February 2011 (when I purchased this) and July 2011, the price jumped $4–now they’re $32 a pop! Many brands raise prices every year or so, but you do not typically see such a large increase.

These are similar to Glossimers in the ways that count–they have the same shine and shimmer that gives lips a really juicy look. The texture of Chantecaille’s Brilliant Lipgloss is more gel-like and not as thin as Chanel’s, but both formulas are comfortable to wear and last about the same (three to four hours). Chanel’s Extrait de Gloss has a more comparable formula, but that formula doesn’t have much shimmer. Chanel Emoi is similar in color and payoff, while Sun Gold Glossimer is similar in overall composition but is less pigmented.

I like the gloss and think it is better than the actual rating given here, but a lot of the points lost in overall product quality came from failure to plump lips, which was one of the claims made.  It did not wear exceptionally long, and given it stated it was long-lasting, it lost more points there.   Without a specified length of wear, I judge long-lasting on wearing longer than average for me (which is 3-4 hours, so 5-6 would qualify this as long-lasting for review purposes). I imagine that most do not care if these plump or not, and from my experience, many do not mind reapplying gloss often–I just try to review and rate based on what products are supposed to do, so you have all the information and can decide what is/isn’t important to you.

The Glossover

coming-soon

Chantecaille Brilliant Lipgloss Review, Photos, Swatches (Glaze)

C
When worn, it doesn't feel like a C-rated lipgloss at all, but the lack of plumping results coupled with average wear (as opposed to long-lasting wear) brought down an otherwise good lipgloss.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

7/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

7/10

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 →

Thursday, July 14th, 2011


Giorgio Armani #502 Gloss d’Armani

Giorgio Armani #502 Gloss d’Armani

Giorgio Armani #502 Gloss d’Armani ($28.00 for 0.22 fl. oz.) is a pink-tinged beige with soft white shimmer–it looks more like slightly milky beige gloss with a healthy dose of shimmer when worn but light on actual color. I imagine it will soften those with naturally more pigmented lips.

Gloss d’Armani is supposed to last for eight hours (without fading), be moisturizing, and have a smooth, non-sticky texture. Color payoff is indeterminant, because on one hand, Giorgio Armani says “concentrated, high definition color” but then later describes some shades as “sheer chiffon.” For a more in-depth review of Gloss d’Armani, please read my original review here.

#502 certainly falls under “sheer chiffon,” I’d say! There is plenty of shimmer, though, so it gives the illusion of more color than it actually is. It always seems counter-intuitive to rank a sheer product with full marks on pigmentation, but if it’s supposed to be “sheer chiffon,” this lives up to the claim. This was the second shade I tried, and I alternated between this shade and #505 (the one I first reviewed) during testing, because it was such a light shade. I often test the light and darks of a new formula, because you do tend to get better wear out of more pigmented shades compared to sheerer ones.

To my complete surprise, #502 wears nearly as well as the more pigmented #505. Neither wears for as long as the brand claims, but #502 wore for five hours, and there was still residual shimmer an hour or so later. I would say reapplication was needed by five hours, though, and if you wanted to maintain the glossiness of the look, more along the lines of two and a half. Just as I did with #505, though, it’s non-sticky for only part of the time. It starts off as almost gel-like and non-sticky, but over time, it gets tackier and tackier. It’s not thick and sticky, but I wouldn’t describe it as non-sticky at all. I didn’t detect any fragrance or scent.

It’s one of my new favorites in gloss, just because six hours of wear for a gloss is excellent–as a reviewer, it’s almost painful to have to knock it down so severely because of their very specific claim of eight-hours of wear.

The Glossover

P
product

#502

B
The shortcomings in wear (five hours compared to the eight hours claimed) and sticky texture (compared to the non-sticky texture promised) bring down the overall score for this product, but it's one of the longest-wearing glosses I've come across that is actually moisturizing and comfortable to wear.

Product

10/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

6/10

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 →