Saturday, April 6th, 2013

MAC Lavender Whip Lipstick
MAC Lavender Whip Lipstick

MAC Lavender Whip Lipstick ($15.00 for 0.10 oz.) is described as a “light cool lavender [with a] Cremesheen [finish].” It’s a pink-tinted lavender with a soft, pearly finish. MAC Nocturnal Instincts is darker, more mauve, less pink. MAC Budding Love is more lavender. MAC Quite Cute is lighter. MAC Pink Friday is cooler-toned, more opaque. MAC I Like It Like That is more opaque. MAC Blooming Lovely is grayer.

It had semi-sheer to semi-opaque color payoff; it hid most of my lip freckle but there was a slight translucency all around that allowed the natural lip color to come through. The finish has a light, pearly sheen, as it is part of the Cremesheen family. It has a lightly creamy consistency that gets creamier the longer it is held against the lip–it always starts off a bit stiff, but as the first layer wears away, it gets better. I wore Lavender Whip yesterday, and it lasted three hours, which is a bit below average for a lipstick. It was neither drying nor hydrating.

So, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Lavender Whip 2013 Edition is not the same as the Lavender Whip that came out in 2008. When I initially swatched it, it seemed pinker, but I thought I remembered wrong and/or lighting differences accounted for it. I went back into the Temptalia archives and compared my 2008 version to the sample I received this past week–and they are definitely different. I took a snap of the tubes themselves (with my phone’s camera and in my office, so apologies for the quality not being quite as good!) and then just added comparison swatches. This year’s Lavender Whip is pinker–it is much less purple. The newer version reads warmer, less lavender. They’re sisters but not twins. If Lavender Whip was too purple, it will be a happy change, but if you wanted something more decidedly purple, you may be disappointed.

The Glossover

LE
product

Lavender Whip

B
This year's Lavender Whip is pinker--it is much less purple. They're sisters but not twins. If Lavender Whip was too purple, it will be a happy change, but if you wanted something more decidedly purple, you may be disappointed.

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

7.5/10

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 →

Friday, April 5th, 2013

Urban Decay Zodiac Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Zodiac Moondust Eyeshadow

Urban Decay Zodiac Moondust Eyeshadow ($20.00 for 0.05 oz.) is described as a “smoky black with blue-green shift and blue-green 3-D sparkle.” It’s a rich, darkened forest green with green and green-teal sparkle and shimmer over a blackened-brown base. L’Oreal Golden Emerald is lighter, warmer. MAC Smutty Green is darker, less sparkly. Inglot #414 is more teal.

Of the six shades I’ve swatched, Zodiac is the most nuanced as it has more color shift (almost like a duochrome). Applied dry, it had decent color payoff, but it is definitely more intense when applied with a damp brush–then the blackened base darkens and the finish turns smoother, more metallic, and the green becomes more pronounced. The texture feels almost wet, but it’s very smooth, fine, and thin. It applies well to the lid, and it is easy to blend out, but there is fall out during application and later on while it is worn. The eyeshadow lasted without fading or creasing over eight hours on the lid. For a comparison to Stardusts, read this post.

The Glossover

product

Urban Decay Zodiac Moondust Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches

B
If you already love sparkle and don't mind some fall out or you have an adhesive base you'd use, definitely worth checking out. The effect is reflective, sparkling, and looks wet on.

Product

8/10

Pigmentation

9.5/10

Texture

9.5/10

Longevity

6.5/10

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 →

Friday, April 5th, 2013

Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow

Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow ($20.00 for 0.05 oz.) is described as a “metallic lime-gold with gold 3-D sparkle.” It’s a green-tinged gold with brownish undertones and a sparkling, metallic finish. Clinique Whopping Willow is darker, greener. Tarina Tarantino Dandy Lion is much greener and darker. MAC Sumptuous Olive is less metallic. Inglot #433 is less green, darker. MAC Old Gold is warmer, less green.

I know the question you’re dying to ask, so let’s just get it out of the way: there’s fall out. And yes, there’s fall out not just during application but while it’s worn–and it is less than Urban Decay’s micro-glitter powder eyeshadows. Is the effect dynamite? Oh, it’s gorgeous. It’s a glittering, sparkling affair that is so, so pretty as the light catches different parts of the lid. It’s an effect that shows itself best in person (with movement) as the shimmer shifts like glimmering water. The fall out is noticeable enough that it’s a drawback; with three on at once, it’s noticeable, but with just one shade, it happens but is not quite as glaring.  As someone who has little tolerance for fall out, I’d occasionally wear these and deal with it because the effect really is (to me) stunning–but that doesn’t excuse it.

Stargazer has good color payoff whether applied dry or wet, though it is much smoother and metallic in finish when applied with a damp brush. It applied well to the lid, and the fall out during application was noticeable but not as much as you’d expect. The real downside is that there is perpetual fall out throughout the time you wear it. You can clean-up fall out that occurs after you’ve applied your eyeshadow, before you leave, but a few hours later? Not so practical. Because the sparkle in this is rather fine, it’s not nearly as noticeable as the micro-glitter found in Urban Decay’s powder eyeshadows. It’s more visible as the particles catch the light. It didn’t crease or fade on me during the eight hours I wore it, and though there was fall out, the color itself didn’t look patchy or as if anything were missing.

Three years ago, Urban Decay released Stardust Eyeshadow, and Moondust feels a lot like them. It has the same wet-but-not texture that feels rather different from powder eyeshadows (and not like a cream, as it is very thin and feels almost wet). I don’t think these are quite like products such as Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense or L’Oreal Infallibles, which have a more powdery texture and feel and are not quite as sparkly. MAC’s Pressed Pigments are somewhat similar, but the sparkle/glitter is larger, chunkier. The texture feels different, and the sparkle content is much, much higher. Moondusts have a finer sparkle/shimmer compared to the Stardusts, as there’s not a bit of grit with them. Moondust was also much more blendable and easier to apply overall.

The Glossover

product

Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches

B

On the plus side, it is packs a lot of pigment for something as glittery as this, but it does suffer from a fair amount of fall out. If you already love sparkle and don't mind some fall out or you have an adhesive base you'd use, definitely worth checking out. The effect is reflective, sparkling, and looks wet on.

Product

8/10

Pigmentation

9.5/10

Texture

9.5/10

Longevity

6.5/10

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 →

Friday, April 5th, 2013

MAC Double Definition Extra Dimension Skinfinish
MAC Double Definition Extra Dimension Skinfinish

MAC Double Definition Extra Dimension Skinfinish ($30.00 for 0.31 oz.) is described as a “soft shimmery gold” and “patina bronze.” Together, they create a warm, golden-shimmered bronzed-tan with a frosted, not-quite-metallic finish. The lighter shade is a metallic yellowed gold, while the deeper shade is a pearly gold-shimmered, medium-dark brown with a slightly shadowy cast. MAC Worldly Wealth is warmer, more orange. MAC Glorify and Estee Lauder Topaz Chameleon are both darker, warmer. MAC Light Over Dark is somewhat similar. Guerlain Terracotta Sun in the City is similar to the lighter shade.

The product can be used individually or together, as each section is large enough to accommodate a normal blush brush. The lighter shade has an extremely frosted, metallic finish that’s very, very pore-emphasizing. The darker shade is more flattering against the skin, as it does not emphasize the skin’s natural texture or its pores. Swirled together and then applied, there is still noticeable emphasis of the pores due to the more metallic finish. Aside from the nature of the finish, I think this color will work well on deeper complexions. I feel like if you loved MAC’s Mineralize Skinfinishes with ultra metallic finishes and shades like Metal Rock (which I don’t own, so I can’t compare directly), you’d like this. Double Definition wore seven hours well but showed some patchiness after eight hours.  The texture was soft and blendable, but there was some dryness there–dry in the weird way that this formula can be, such that it feels dry to the touch but doesn’t perform as if it were dry.

The Glossover

product

MAC Double Definition Extra Dimension Skinfinish Review, Photos, Swatches

B
This product is incredibly well-pigmented, but it emphasizes pores and imperfections of the skin quite a bit. It also doesn't wear for a full eight hours, so it could use improvement there, too.

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

7.5/10

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 →

Friday, March 29th, 2013

MAC Silly Lip Pencil
MAC Silly Lip Pencil

MAC Silly Lip Pencil ($15.00 for 0.05 oz.) is described as a “bright pink.” It’s a medium, brightened pink with subtle cool undertones and a totally matte finish. The closest dupe I could think of was MAC Hip ‘n’ Happy, which isn’t as bright and has a much cooler undertone.

I was able to apply this shade with mostly even and opaque color, but it had such a dry, stubborn consistency that it really takes a lot of maneuvering and back-and-forth motions to get full color if you want to fill in the entire lip. It is easier to apply if you’re only looking to line around the edges of the lip. The coloring combined with the extremely matte finish gave it a slightly chalky look. MAC’s Lip Pencils will wear for hours and hours, but they’re drying and rough to wear on their own, so they do a lot better when used underneath your favorite lipstick or gloss.

The Glossover

LE
product

Silly

B
This might be a nice fill in color for a blue-based pink that you'd like to make warmer without totally making it a warm-toned shade.

Product

7.5/10

Pigmentation

9.5/10

Texture

7.5/10

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 →

Friday, March 29th, 2013

MAC Silly Lipglass
MAC Silly Lipglass

MAC Silly Lipglass ($15.00 for 0.17 fl. oz.) is described as “bright pink.” It’s a medium, bubblegum pink with subtle blue undertones and a creamy, glossy finish. MAC Pink Nouveau is lighter. NARS Coeur Sucre is also lighter and has white shimmer. MAC Style Packed is brighter, a touch darker. MAC Sassy Lassy is very similar but has shimmer. MAC True Babe is darker.

It has mostly opaque color coverage, but it’s not completely full–it does this thing where it settles into lip lines and has some translucency such that the natural lip color comes through but in a more textural way. Silly has a thicker consistency (but true to Lipglass’ formula), is tacky, and applies mostly evenly. I usually see wear around four hours with MAC’s Lipglass formula, but I’ll be testing this one later today and will update if it is better/worse than that. It’s not super, super blue-based like some of MAC’s cool-toned pink glosses are, so it will be more wearable across skin tones.

The Glossover

LE
product

Silly

B
It's not super, super blue-based like some of MAC's cool-toned pink glosses are, so it will be more wearable across skin tones. It's a good pink for layering over other pink and fuchsia lipglosses that will enhance the underlying lipstick.

Product

8.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

8.5/10

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 →