Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

MAC Light Year Mineralize Skinfinish
MAC Light Year Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Light Year Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Light Year Mineralize Skinfinish ($29.00 for 0.24 oz.) is described as a “peachy pink with gold shimmer.” It’s a light-medium peach with hints of pink and a golden shimmer-sheen. There is light peach, light-medium yellow-toned pink, and bronze. On my skin, it looks more peach, but in the pan, it seems more peach-pink. I would expect those with pinker undertones to see more peach-pink coloring (I have warmer undertones). Tom Ford Lovelust is darker, more coral. Estee Lauder Bronze Goddess is very similar.   Mine did have a peach haze over the bronze vein, which didn’t go away with a quick swipe, so it seems like the peach color ended up slightly layered over the rest of the product. I don’t think it really affects the color, since each pan is a swirl of various colors, some with larger veins than others.

Light Year seemed to embody the characteristics that I see others rave about when it comes to Mineralize Skinfinishes. It has that glowy effect that’s just a little obvious but not over-the-top and bordering on disco-ball territory. It didn’t emphasize my pores too much (just minutely), and it was very blendable.  This is a lighter shade, so it’s going to be more like a highlighting blush on light to medium skin tones, and then more of a highlighter on medium to dark skin tones.

The texture is slightly powdery, though very soft, so I liked applying it with a stippling brush like the 187 so I could still get some color but not end up with a powdery finish.  (And of course, as with anything powdery, a spritz of water, or Fix+ if you’re a fan, will take down some powderiness.)  When I tested out the wear of this, I put it on at 6AM this morning, and it’s now after 1PM–it’s slightly faded but no separation after seven hours.

The Glossover

LE
product

Light Year

A-
Light Year is just a bit on the powdery side and doesn't wear for a full eight hours, but the texture is soft, highly blendable, and looks good on the skin.

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9.5/10

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!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

MAC Cusp of Dawn Lipstick
MAC Cusp of Dawn Lipstick

MAC Heavenly Creatures Lipsticks

MAC Heavenly Creatures Lipsticks ($14.50 for 0.10 oz.) features five shades: Cusp of Dawn (beige pink), Cut a Caper (mid-tone peach pink), Fire Sign (red pink), Pleasureseeker (creamy peach), and Venus (sheer yellow pink with pearl).  Both Cut a Caper and Pleasureseeker have been released in previous collections, and all five are limited edition.

  • Cusp of Dawn is a soft, warm peach-beige with a little hint of brown and orange-copper shimmer. This has a lustre finish. The color coverage is semi-sheer, depositing more visible shimmer-sheen (almost looks metallic on my lips) while muting any natural pink in my lips. On my lips, it comes out as a subdued beige with a semi-metallic finish. Guerlain Chant d’Aromes is slightly browner and more opaque, less metallic. MAC Viva Glam VI has more red and plum (but it looked a little similar on). Maybelline Coral Kiss is slightly rosier. Guerlain Grace is rosier.
  • Cut a Caper is a pink-coral with this really, really subtle purplish iridescence. This has a lustre finish. The color coverage is semi-opaque and very buildable, so you can use almost nothing and get sheer color. Bobbi Brown Pink Seashell is less pink. Chanel Coquette is more vibrant, pinker. NARS Niagara is darker, pinker.
  • Fire Sign is a pinky-red with semi-opaque color coverage. This has a lustre finish. Was anyone else wanting this shade to be more fiery? It’s exactly as described, so I don’t take any real issue with it, I just envisioned something more fiery by the name (this has no impact on the review!). Guerlain Pour Troubler is a little more ruby red. NARS Flamenco is comparable. Guerlain Grenade is similar, slightly more muted.
  • Pleasureseeker is a dirty peach with subtle warm undertones. This has a glaze finish. It has semi-sheer color payoff, though it has more of a frosted/metallic effect than a lot of color. It seems to warm up my natural lip color and make my lips look a little coral–I imagine this is because it’s semi-sheer, so it’s not adding noticeable peach as a solid color but mixing peach with my underlying lip color. Bobbi Brown Pink Seashell is very similar (perhaps a little pinker in the tube) and also turns my lips to a shade of coral. MAC Razzledazzler is darker, more opaque. Burberry Devon Sunset is more opaque and darker.
  • Venus is a semi-opaque subtly yellow-toned medium pink with subtle golden shimmer. This has a lustre finish. MAC Blood Red is less pink. MAC Radicchio is lighter, plummier. Guerlain Bloom of Rose is more frosted.

Four of the five shades have a lustre finish, which isn’t one of my favorites by MAC for two major reasons: 1) they don’t wear very long (anywhere from one and a half to three hours usually), and 2) they’re drying. One shade has a glaze finish, which is similar but slightly glossier (heavier on the shine, slightly creamier), which wears about as well as lustre finishes do, but I don’t find the glaze finish as drying–slightly drying but not too badly.  MAC lipsticks are vanilla-scented with no discernible taste and come in black bullet tubes with silver accents.

Yesterday, I tested the wear of Cusp of Dawn (two hours), Cut a Caper (three hours), and Fire Sign (five hours), while this morning, I tested out the wear of Pleasureseeker (hour and a half) and Venus (three and a half hours).  All of the shades were on the drying side with Cut a Caper being the least drying but slightly so.  Cusp of Dawn and Pleasureseeker will do best on well-hydrated, smooth lips.  The sheer and frost combination doesn’t work well on dehydrated lips, as it tends to accentuate any imperfections on the lip, like dryness, flaking, and cracking.

On the whole, I do like MAC lipsticks, and I think there are few brands that provide as many shade varieties as they do (there are so many classics in the permanent range, and plenty of “ooh, I remember loving you” shades that were limited edition). I also think they’re a good option for someone who wants to go high-end but doesn’t want to shell out $20+ for true high-end brands (as MAC is generally considered mid-end, though their price points have been creeping–especially on newer product types–upward into high-end territory, e.g. $20 for an eyeshadow).  Lustres just don’t work well on me; they wear off easily and dry out my lips, and since four of the five are lustres, this review certainly reflects those problems.

The Glossover

product

MAC Heavenly Creatures Lipsticks Review, Photos, Swatches

B-
Lustres just don't work well on me; they wear off easily and dry out my lips, and since four of the five are lustres, this review certainly reflects those problems. If you find lustres to be moisturizing or non-drying and/or don't mind frequent reapplication, then these are worth considering. I didn't have any problems with pigmentation, evenness, etc.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

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 →

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

MAC Solar Ray Mineralize Blush
MAC Solar Ray Mineralize Blush

MAC Solar Ray Mineralize Blush

MAC Solar Ray Mineralize Blush ($23.50 for 0.10 oz.) is described as a “peach and gold melange.” The colors swirled together create a warm, peach-shimmered orange; reminded me of apricots. The individual shades are a orange-gold and a pink-peach. It’s surprisingly similar to MAC Warmth of Coral, which is nearly identical in color but has a much more matte finish. Illamasqua Lover is slightly darker and matte.

The finish isn’t over-the-top once applied, though there was some emphasis of pores/texture, because it has a more metallic sheen. I did not care for the overall texture of the blush, as it was a little gritty from the excess sparkle (see the golden orange vein–you can see the roughness of the vein itself in the photos!). A lot of the individual sparkles seem to get lost in the bristles of the brush rather than being applied to the face, which may be good or bad, depending on your tastes.

I had to build up the color quite a bit to get it to show up enough for photos. There’s just something about the texture that makes it all too easily blended out, so you might want to use a flatter and denser brush for application. Solar Ray didn’t perform well when worn; it only lasted for six hours before I saw separation and fading. It was interesting to see the different timelines of all four cheek products!

The Glossover

LE
product

Solar Ray

C+
Solar Ray does require heavier application to show up on medium to dark skin tones, though it should be just fine for lighter complexions. It's very warm toned, but there is some peach in it, so it may work for both cool and warm skin tones.

Product

7.5/10

Pigmentation

8.5/10

Texture

7.5/10

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 →

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

MAC Ring of Saturn Mineralize Blush
MAC Ring of Saturn Mineralize Blush

MAC Ring of Saturn Mineralize Blush

MAC Ring of Saturn Mineralize Blush ($23.50 for 0.10 oz.) is described as a “terracotta and gold melange.” It’s a gold-shimmered coral-red with warm undertones.  The powder contains a pinky-peach and muted red. Tom Ford Savage is more muted, more matte, but very similar in base color. MAC Buddy Up is less red, darker. MAC Fleet Fast is pinker. MAC Modern Mandarin is more orange, less red, brighter.

Ring of Saturn packs plenty of color punch; you may find you need to use a lighter hand during application to avoid going overboard.  It has a soft, faint golden shimmer-sheen that didn’t seem to emphasize pores or the texture of the skin.  The texture of the powder was soft, smooth, and came together nicely both swatched and applied to cheeks.  When I wore this shade yesterday to see how well it would wear, it managed seven and a half hours and looked only a wee bit faded after eight hours.

The Glossover

LE
product

Ring of Saturn

A-
This shade is flattering across light to dark skin tones, and while it is naturally more flattering on warmer complexions, it can suit cooler skin tones, too. If you are concerned about accentuating any natural redness you have on your cheeks, you might skip this one.

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

8.5/10

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 →

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

MAC Earthshine Mineralize Skinfinish
MAC Earthshine Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Earthshine Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Earthshine Mineralize Skinfinish ($29.00 for 0.24 oz.) is described as a “tarnished bronze with gold pearl and pink reflects.” It’s a red-toned brown with burgundy and gold shimmer. The powder is composed of a dirty gold, peach-orange, and burgundy.  I don’t have Metal Rock, but it might be similar to this (so check your own stash!)–from what I can recall, Metal Rock is browner. MAC Warm Blend has a similar-colored strip in the middle, though it’s not as red-toned. MAC Pressed Amber is much lighter and browner, less red-toned.

This shade is really, and I mean, REALLY intense. Like use a stippling brush with a feather light hand if you have a medium or lighter skin tone. I can’t stress how easy it is to go overboard with this shade, and the texture is extremely unforgiving. It doesn’t want to diffuse at all; it barely blends along the edges, but with enough persistance, it can be blended out to look one with the skin. This color will work well with deeper complexions, and it can certainly work on lighter skin tones, just be prepared for some trial and error.

The texture of Earthshine is dry and powdery, which did make blending more difficult and I ended up cheating a bit by using loose powder around the edges to blend out the edges. Its finish is decidedly metallic; it was extremely reflective, though not glittery, and it did emphasize my pores.  The wear on Earthshine was better than Center of the Universe, as it lasted for seven hours before it started to fade noticeably.

The Glossover

LE
product

Earthshine

B-
This color will work well with deeper complexions, and it can certainly work on lighter skin tones, just be prepared for some trial and error. The texture was unforgiving, though, as it was on the drier side, so it was difficult to blend out the color along the edges.

Product

8/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

7.5/10

Longevity

8/10

Application

3.5/5

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, June 27th, 2012

MAC Center of the Universe Mineralize Skinfinish
MAC Center of the Universe Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Center of the Universe Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Center of the Universe Mineralize Skinfinish ($29.00 for 0.24 oz.) is described as a “coral with gold shimmer.” There is absolutely nothing about this that says coral… nothing even suggests it exists in the product at all! Where’s the pink? the red? Even the online “swatch” on MAC’s website shows the same pattern and coloring that my product actually has (thought maybe my veining was causing the problem). It’s a mix of metallic gold, coppery bronze, and orange, which, when swirled together, creates a medium-dark tan brown with gold shimmer. It’s very similar to the lighter side of MAC A Little Bit of Sunshine–swirled, this shade is a bit darker, because half of it has a darker brown color. MAC Sun & Moon is a little darker, less orange. MAC My Paradise looks somewhat similar on, but it can look redder. MAC Glorify is darker, more bronze. Estee Lauder Topaz Chameleon is much darker, browner. MAC Golden Lariat is similar, slightly more golden.

Depending on how heavily you concentrate on the golden shade, you may have a soft shimmer finish or something more metallic.  The shimmer from the golden color doesn’t seem to be too sparkly, though it doesn’t bind together perfectly, so it’s not completely smooth.  This was one of the sheerer shades out of the four from this collection.  It’s very warm-toned, too, with strong orange tones.  I see this working best on light-medium complexions with warm, yellow undertones.

Yesterday was interesting, as I crammed four cheek products on my face, because with eight products needing anywhere from six to eight hours of testing, it’s hard to test all eight and get you reviews the next day!  I went with two stripes on each cheek (going vertically) and left a small gap between the two colors, which made me look a little like a zebra, but it worked out.

The reason I really want to test as many of these as possible is because they don’t wear very well on me typically, but occasionally, there are some shades that wear better than others.  Center of the Universe wore for about six hours before it started to fade and separate.  I have normal-to-dry skin, which is mostly normal now that it’s summer.  Not great wear for me, so it was a let-down, but it is what I typically experience with Mineralize Skinfinishes.

The Glossover

LE
product

Center of the Universe

B-
This was one of the sheerer shades out of the four from this collection. It's very warm-toned, too, with strong orange tones. I see this working best on light-medium complexions with warm, yellow undertones.

Product

8/10

Pigmentation

9/10

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 →