MAC 215 Medium Shader Brush
Congratulations 214 and 227! It’s a
MAC 215 Medium Shader Brush ($25.00) is a new, limited edition (I believe, at least) brush designed to be used for shaping and defining the eye with both powder and cream eyeshadows. It has natural bristles. This brush is like a bigger 214, or a stumpy version of the 227. The 215 is wide, dome-shaped brush that’s packed with bristles. For me, it felt a little rough on the eye. It was less rough when I used powder eyeshadows than when I used cream eyeshadows, which seemed to emphasize the pointy, blunt edges of the bristles.
This brush is a larger eye brush, so if you have a smaller eye area or smaller lids, you may find it too large to use often. It’s a bit large against my eye lids, but I like it for applying one-and-done eyeshadows–which are more or less a wash of color on the lid. It picks up pigment easily and deposits it well without it getting lost within the bristles. For more multi-colored looks, it’s too big for me. It’s softer than the 214 but not as soft as the 227. The 227 also blends more readily, but this is easier to blend with than the 214.
MAC 163 Flat Top Contour Brush
Defined Contouring Made Easy with the 163
MAC 163 Flat Top Contour Brush ($35.00) is a new and limited edition brush designed to be used with MAC’s Pro Sculpting Creams, but they are noted as a multi-purpose brush, so they can be used however you find it works. The brush is not MAC’s softest face brush, but I wouldn’t describe it as scratchy. I think the blunt edge gives it a harsher feel against the skin, but when I run it back and forth against my face or arm, it feels fine. It’s tightly packed with bristles, making it a very dense brush.
It was good for placing the Pro Sculpting Creams on the face, but it wasn’t so good at blending them out. I needed to use my fingertips or another brush to do that. I think this brush is fairly purpose-specific, and as a result, it’s not a must-have brush for everyone. It may work well in professional kits or for anyone who does more intense, dramatic contouring. I did not like this for foundation, blush, or powder products in general. It worked best with liquids and creams, mostly for initial application. It had a tendency to drag products in noticeable streaks when used to blend.
Again, this is a brush that seemed to be more of a one trick pony than a great workhorse of a brush. It’s great if what you’re looking for is a way to apply cream/liquid products in defined lines. There’s also a Sonia Kashuk brush that’s supposed to be a dupe, but I only just bought mine so I can’t weigh in quite yet!
MAC 167SH Face Blender Brush
MAC 167SH Face Blender Brush
MAC 167SH Face Blender Brush ($34.00) is a limited edition face brush that’s made out of white goat hair. The brush head is about an inch and a half long and an inch or so at its widest point (which is at the top). It has a softly domed-shaped brush head with densely packed bristles with some give, but not so much that it’s floppy. It actually reminded me of a longer, not quite as dense or as stiff, 182, which is MAC’s buffer brush. This works in a similar fashion, but it can also apply and deposit color more accurately than if you were to use the buffer brush. The bristles are very soft to the touch and against the skin.
This brush would also work nicely for applying all-over powders to the face, because it picks up product easily but applies everything with a feathery touch. It can also blend out any harsh edges or lines from other products without much work. Due to the overall soft, airy feel of this brush, it is a great tool for soft powders, as it does not disturb the surface as much so it creates less powdery excess. I really liked this brush, though I personally prefer longer-handled brushes. It’s incredibly soft against the skin, and it’s not as specialized as some of the more recent brush releases–I love that it will be a multi-tasking tool to add to my collection.
As far as I know, MAC continues to make their full-sized brushes by hand, and “SH” stands for short-handled, as compared with “SE,” which indicates special edition–those are the kind of brushes that are mass-produced by machines for the Nordstrom and holiday brush sets. I have been told on several occasions that SH brushes are manufactured just like full-sized brushes, because they’re the same thing–just a shorter handle. This brush was manufactured in China, but this information seems to only be on the plastic sleeve it arrives in, so the handle doesn’t indicate the country of origin. I know there are a lot of fake MAC brushes out there, so I wanted to be sure to include that piece of information.
MAC Hey, Sailor! Gone Sailing Tote
MAC Hey, Sailor! Gone Sailing Tote
MAC Hey, Sailor! Gone Sailing Tote ($45.00) is a 10″ by 20″ navy-striped tote bag that cinches with a “gold” rope. It has faux leather on the bottom and along the top inch and a half of the tote with a glossy red interior for the same inch and a half (the rest is just the interior canvas of the navy-striped exterior). The canvas portion isn’t super, super heavy, but it seems thick and durable enough for its purpose. I bought one for myself, because I collect MAC’s summer totes just in hopes that I can fit Mellan into one of them, but then I received one from their press office this morning–so watch for a giveaway that includes the one I bought soon
MAC Hey, Sailor! Gone Sailing Makeup Bag Set($35.00) includes two coordinating navy-striped makeup bags. The smaller one is about 4″ by 5 1/2″, while the larger one is 5″ by 10 1/2″. They’re looped together with a “gold” rope and clip. Each bag has a “gold” zipper pull and metallic-navy nylon interior (well, feels like nylon to me). The exterior is thin canvas, and the area right by the zipper is patent red. The makeup bags felt a little cheaper to me, and I don’t think they’d stand up to any heavy spills or the like. They should hold up fine with lighter usage.
MAC 193 Angled Foundation Brush
I’m still testing the Matchmaster foundation, but in the meanwhile, I do like the new and permanent MAC 193 Angled Foundation Brush ($32.00) that was released alongside the foundation. It’s firm and densely-packed, and the angled edge makes it easy to maneuver around noses and underneath eyes. I like it better than the 190, which I find too flat.
This brush is smaller, though, so it may take a little longer to apply foundation to the face entirely. The bigger concern is the size of it and the size of the area you’re attempting to cover may make it easier to get product towards the edge of the ferrule–and it is much harder to clean this area. It will give a slightly streaky look if you just pull it across the plane of your face, you will see lines. I use a lighter hand and brush it back and forth, and I find the finish and overall look to be blended and seamless.
It’s great for those with smaller faces or would prefer something more precise for around the nose, underneath the eyes, as well as the temples. The density makes it a good brush for liquid and cream formulas. The bristles are soft and pliable but not floppy or fluffy. It holds its shape well after washing.
Slice Slanted Tweezers
Slice Slanted Soft-Touch Tweezers
Slice Slanted Soft-Touch Tweezers ($19.99) is a new product to the market and one I saw during my trip to Cosmoprof. I was drawn to their booth by their logo and overall aesthetic, and they just launched several tweezers as well as a pencil sharpener (for cosmetics). I generally prefer a slanted tip myself, but they also have pointed and combination available, along with each style in both Soft Touch (which is red) and stailess steel.
I have been a huge fan of Tweezerman tweezers for years–I have over five pairs scattered around my home, but since I’ve been testing these, I haven’t wanted to reach back for them. I recently used my Tweezerman tweezers (I brought them along on my NYC trip), and it just didn’t feel as good in my hands as these. I missed my Slice ones after having used them for the past few weeks.
The ergonomics of the Slice tweezers are great; it’s comfortable to hold in your hand, and as someone with longer fingers, I find the broader design fits better in my hand as well. They were designed by architect Michael Graves, but the design translates well into usability. The rubberized finish (over stainless steel) makes it easier to hold and grip. These tweezers are crisp, too, they clamp together like a vice grip around the tiniest stray brow hair.