Friday, May 18th, 2012


MAC Suntints SPF 20 Liquid Lip Balm

MAC Hey, Sailor: Suntints SPF 20 Liquid Lip Balm

MAC Suntints SPF 20 Liquid Lip Balm ($16.00 for 0.33 fl. oz.) comes in three limited edition shades: Abalone (see-through hot pink with no pearl), Au Rose (poppy coraly pink with gold pearl), and Sea Mist (peachy nude with multi-dimensional pearl). Like the name suggests, this product is designed to be incredibly moisturizing while giving a soft tint of color.

  • Abalone is a pale light-medium pink with a cool undertone. It darkens my natural lip color a bit and adds a lot of shine. Any pink-tinged gloss without shimmer will be very similar.
  • Au Rose is a light-medium pink with gold shimmer. This is the most “pigmented” shade out of the three. It adds noticeable shimmer and a very subtle pink tint. There are numerous possible dupes, because it is a really sheer shade.
  • Sea Mist is a sheer pale beige with white shimmer. It adds glossiness and white shimmer.  Again, so many dupes available, because there aren’t any nuances to the color as there isn’t much color!

I’m not a fan of the Suntints. I find that they’re so sheer that they’re virtually colorless on, but the worst part is that they’re not very moisturizing. In the past, they tend to lock in moisture while you’re wearing them but do not provide any real hydration after they wear away. I tested Au Rose, and it was actually drying. The texture is a bit like jelly; a little thick, glides on easily, but it gets very tacky after about ten minutes. Au Rose lasted about an hour and a half on my lips before it had worn away to the point where it was a thin layer of tackiness and some remaining shimmer.

The Glossover

product

MAC Hey, Sailor! Suntints SPF 20 Liquid Lip Balms Review, Photos, Swatches

C-
If they were actually hydrating, these would be worth checking out, but with their short wear time and barely moisturizing (or, in the case of Au Rose, actually drying!), these are something to skip.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

7/10

Texture

8.5/10

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 →

Sunday, March 18th, 2012

Bobbi Brown Beige Gold Rich Lip Color
Bobbi Brown Beige Gold Rich Lip Color

Bobbi Brown Beige Gold Rich Lip Color

Bobbi Brown Beige Gold Rich Lip Color ($23.00 for 0.13 oz.) is described as a “pale nude with golden pearl.” It’s a pale, subtly warmed champagne-nude shimmer lipstick. MAC Annelie is more metallic, lighter. NYX Fortune Cookie is frostier and lighter. MAC To Joy is pinker.

Of the shades released in the Rose Gold collection, Beige Gold is the least pigmented–it’s more like a heavily-dosed shimmer finish with less underlying color. You get semi-sheer to semi-opaque color, and there’s an overall lightening of the natural lip color with plenty of shimmer. This shade only hung on for two and a half hours, which is rather short, though not entirely unexpected, given its light coloring. Because of the higher shimmer content, it didn’t glide on easily as the other shades, which tend to be creamier. Unfortunately, this shade doesn’t deliver on the Rich Lip Color promises of a long-wearing, moisturizing, and full color formula.

The Glossover

coming-soon

Bobbi Brown Beige Gold Rich Lip Color Review, Photos, Swatches

C-
The lipstick isn't awful nor does it feel like a C- lipstick, but it falls short of nearly every selling point of the Rich Lip Color formula, and so it doesn't live up to the brand's claims.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

8/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

5/10

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 →

Friday, January 27th, 2012

NARS Laguna The Multiple
NARS Laguna The Multiple

NARS Laguna The Multiple

NARS Laguna The Multiple ($39.00 for 0.50 oz.) is described as a “brown with golden shimmer.” Multiples are a cream-to-powder product that is touted as “all-in-one” and multi-purpose.  It can be used on eyes, lips, and cheeks.  It’s a warm bronze-brown with golden shimmer-sheen.  The color is buildable, so the level of opacity you want depends on how much product you apply or how much you blend it out.  It’s less warm-toned compared to theBalm Betty Lou-Manizer. It’s less red-toned compared to MAC Gilty.

As with most Multiples, Laguna works best as cheeks/face, because it’s very drying on the lips.  It just has this uncomfortably dry feeling when applied to lips that continues and leaves lips parched after an hour or two of wear (it doesn’t even wear well or long!).  On the brow bone, it’s more practical, but on the lid itself, I wasn’t able to get it to stay longer than a few hours before there was noticeable creasing.  Applied to cheeks, Laguna wore for four and a half hours.  By five hours, it looked a bit faded and patchy.

The texture of Laguna is creamy but there’s a dryness to it, which I found difficult to blend over foundation.  It’s easier to apply and blend over bare skin, but I’m not blessed with beautiful skin so it’s not a product I could use without foundation.  You can layer foundation over it, but it makes the routine slightly more complicated and precision will count, so you don’t layer so much that you cover up the bronzer!

I wish I liked Multiples better, but I don’t find they’re nearly as multi-talented as they claim to be!  I’m always a bit disappointed in the wear (four to five hours isn’t good!).  I get better wear out of NARS’ powder blushes!  Laguna may not work for all skin tones; I found it looked a little dirty on me–you might need to have some natural redness or pinkness in your undertones so it brings out the golden hues of the color.

Do you love Multiples? What are your tried and true tips for making them work?

The Glossover

P
product

Laguna

C-
The dry texture works against this product, because it makes it harder to blend out (which is an absolute must when this is used as a blush/bronzer!) and yields an unpleasant experience when worn on lips.

Product

6.5/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

7.5/10

Longevity

6/10

Application

3/5

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, December 21st, 2011

MAC Vintage Coin Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow<
MAC Vintage Coin Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches (Part 2)

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow ($20.00 for 0.08 oz.) will launch nine limited edition shades on December 26th (in-stores), and they include: Cyber (metallic silver with silver pearl), Fusion Gold (light pinky beige with gold pearl), Gold Carbon (metallic taupe), Palladium (metallic ash), Red Hot Copper (warm copper), Rusty (dirty peach gold), Venetian Tarnish (golden tarnished bronze), Vintage Coin (metallic olive green), and Virgin Silver (white with silver pearl).

  • Rusty is a softened copper with golden shimmer-sheen. It’s not as intense as a lot of coppers can be. The finish here wasn’t as metallic as some of the other shades. It’s similar to Urban Decay Chopper, which is a little more orange. MAC Soft Brown is kind of like a matte version of this. MAC Lie Low is a hue or two browner.
  • Venetian Tarnish is a molten gold-shimmered bronze. It has this deeper, darker bronzy base color but the sheen it gives off makes it appear more golden. Urban Decay Snakebite is similar in the base color but the sheen isn’t nearly as strong. MAC Tempting has a similar sheen but warmer base–I think if you layered it over a deeper brown (maybe even just Bronze), you could get close. Urban Decay Deeper is similar, not as bright of a sheen. Inglot #406 is also similar. Urban Decay Smog has less of sheen but pretty similar in color.
  • Vintage Coin is a rich, medium-dark olive green with darker, almost emerald green shimmer. Bare Escentuals Speaker Box is less metallic and warm. Lancome Designer is not as intense.
  • Virgin Silver is a really bright silvery white with a metallic sheen. This was the least pigmented of the range. It’s brighter than Bobbi Brown Tinsel and lighter than MAC Misty. MAC White Frost has less silver. Inglot #447 would make for a really great dupe. Chanel Fantasme is sheerer and more glittery with less white.

Virgin Silver had some pigmentation issues for me; it has a really bright, reflective finish but applies sheer even though I tried to build it up to be more opaque.  The other three shades were nicely pigmented, though, and were some of the creamier, easier to blend out shades of the set.  I liked Venetian Tarnish the most, but it actually seems the most dupeable!

For the full review, please see this post.

The Glossover

product

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches (Part 2)

C-
If you're really into editorial looks and you don't mind extra effort, you might still enjoy snagging one of these. The only characteristic they really nail is pigmentation--the majority of shades are really well-pigmented and buildable--but it's just not a very functional product.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

5/10

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, December 21st, 2011

MAC Red Hot Copper Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow
MAC Red Hot Copper Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches (Part 1)

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow ($20.00 for 0.08 oz.) will launch nine limited edition shades on December 26th (in-stores), and they include: Cyber (metallic silver with silver pearl), Fusion Gold (light pinky beige with gold pearl), Gold Carbon (metallic taupe), Palladium (metallic ash), Red Hot Copper (warm copper), Rusty (dirty peach gold), Venetian Tarnish (golden tarnished bronze), Vintage Coin (metallic olive green), and Virgin Silver (white with silver pearl).  This post features the first five (we split posts primarily to manage the image load, so instead of almost 50 photos being downloaded at one time, we have only 25 ).

  • Cyber is a dark silver-shimmered gray. This one felt like it had larger sparkle particles, so it may be prone to fall out. MAC Silver Sleet is similar but a little darker–however, it has a much more of a metallic finish, whereas Cyber has more of a frosted one. MAC Tundra is a little lighter.
  • Fusion Gold is a peachy rose with good color payoff. This is one of the more versatile shades–I liked it best as a highlighter. MAC Nubile is pinker. Chanel Emerveille is very similar.
  • Gold Carbon is a really deep, dark intense neutral-cool brown with hints of gray and copper. It reminded me a lot of NARS Ponderosa. Wet ‘n’ Wild We’re Blasting Off is a bit purpler. MAC Legendary Black isn’t as dark but still similar.
  • Palladium is a dirty gold-silver; kind of pewter-like. It’s a little more silvered than Giorgio Armani #19. Wet ‘n’ Wild Dancing in the Clouds is a touch darker. I think MAC Cash Flow is a bit darker.
  • Red Hot Copper is a reddened copper with a metallic sheen. It’s a bit redder compared to theBalm Racy Kacy. It’s very similar to MAC Coppering.
These five had good color payoff overall, which is where this particular product excels in, but these shades definitely have good pigmentation and can be sheered out and blended if desired.  The wear, of course, did not pan out for me despite trying several different methods, and as I have drier lids, I caution those with oilier lids on these.  As with a lot of cream products, wear can vary from person to person, but generally, the oilier your skin type is, the less likely a cream product is to wear well (as oil breaks down makeup).  The finishes on these is not nearly as metallic as you might expect from a product named “Metal-x” but some are better than others.

For the full review, please see this post.

The Glossover

product

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches (Part 1)

C-
If you're really into editorial looks and you don't mind extra effort, you might still enjoy snagging one of these. The only characteristic they really nail is pigmentation--the majority of shades are really well-pigmented and buildable--but it's just not a very functional product.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

5/10

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, December 21st, 2011

MAC Palladium Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow<
MAC Palladium Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow Review & Photos

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow ($20.00 for 0.08 oz.) may sound new to some, but it originally debuted way back in 2007 (see my original “review” here–and I called that a review? For shame!) and were repromoted in 2008 as “Brushed Metal-x.” I kind of think the shades from the first launch were more fun–I still have Plum Electric (vibrant grape purple), though I don’t think I used it but a couple of times, because it looks nearly new. Cyber, Fusion Gold, and Virgin Silver have been relaunched as part of this year’s offerings.

In two separate posts, I will go through the individual shades regarding their pros/cons, possible dupes, and so forth, but I did as much testing as I could in time that I’ve had these, which is about 24 hours by the time this post is published. Lucky for me, because these crease nearly instantaneously, it was easy to test multiple shades.

Worn alone, none of the shades I tested (two are photographed below–Palladium and Venetian Tarnish–but I also tested Fusion Gold, Rusty, and Vintage Coin) could make it from application to camera (and I hurried!) without some creasing, and then, after fifteen minutes or so, significant creasing. Worn over an eyeshadow base (I used MAC Paint Pots and NARS Smudgeproof), it didn’t seem to make much of a difference–still creased within minutes and worsened by fifteen.

I did, however, have luck when I wore a single shade layered over an eyeshadow base with several powder eyeshadows on top. I used all MAC products, for the sake of giving MAC the best chance it could, and for me, everything managed to wear well enough for five hours. There was some fading of the colors overall, but I didn’t experience creasing up until that point. By eight, though, it had faded a bit more and had some noticeable creasing. However, a word of caution, I have drier lids, and I really packed on the powder products.

I also tested the wear on both cheeks and lips. They had a funny taste, so I don’t think I’d wear them again as a lip product, and they are very drying. They’re like a matte frost finish–the drying, clingy feel of a matte coupled with a really high frost finish. On the lips, I tried Red Hot Copper, which only lasted for an hour (no eating/drinking) before fading unevenly.  It’s uncomfortable and doesn’t wear well.

On cheeks, I used Rusty to highlight and Red Hot Copper to add color. Because of the higher frost content, it does emphasize pores somewhat, and depending on the temperature of your workspace, these may be difficult to apply evenly. I found fingers to be the best applicator with these in general, because the cream surface is very hard and almost powdery–it balls up and takes the warmth from your fingertip to be able to work it out into a smooth, even finish. The wear was so-so; it was noticeably faded and, unfortunately, patchy, after three hours of wear without a setting powder and five hours of wear with a setting powder. Of all the ways I tried it, I liked it best on the cheeks, just because I didn’t have to worry about creasing.  It wears similarly on the brow bone and decolletage.

This is really not a consumer-friendly formula; it will take some effort, work, practice, and the right skin type to get these to work well. In 2007, maybe it was acceptable, maybe other brands hadn’t created technology to yield this kind of finish and color payoff, but in 2011, I don’t think it is. If you have drier lids or tend not to have problems with your cream products creasing on you, these may work out for you. If you have oilier lids, I really do recommend–if these are just tempting you beyond belief–to try one and see how it works for you or else buy from a store with a good return policy. These weren’t well-received in 2007, so I’m kind of baffled as to why MAC would bring thes back without some reformulation. Sure, they bring back a product that seemed to receive mostly negative reviews, but last year’s Mega Metals (just as metallic as these) were a complete homerun and those remain a one-time wonder.

At $20 a pop, if the only way I can use it is as an eyeshadow base, it’s not the most useful product in my stash. When you use a translucent powder on top, while you retain some of the original shade, you do mute it a bit and definitely tone down the frosted/metallic finish, so it seems to defeat the purpose of these–which is that really high-shine, metallic-like finish (though some of these read frosty, less metallic).  I could see picking up one or two for editorial work, though I think MAC’s Metal Pigments have a much better metallic finish and work better, plus some of their pigments that have more of a frosted/metallic shine.  Like Big Bounce, I don’t know why these are marketed towards consumers, because realistically, I’m not sure how one would wear it except if you 1) wanted your eye makeup to crease or 2) you were only going somewhere for an hour or so.

We’ve seen MAC put out metallic fluidlines and paint pots, which work fantastically alone or as an eyeshadow base. I’d much rather put my money towards products with similar textures, finishes, and even shades, that perform better like Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadows, Chanel Illusion d’Ombres, Bare Escentuals Stay-There Eyeshadow, or L’Oreal’s Infallible Eyeshadows (which finally hit the states!)–the latter two don’t wear as well as the first two, but they’ll manage to six hours to eight hours or so without an eyeshadow base.  Even Estee Lauder’s new eyeshadows have a really cool, metallic-like finish, but they’re powder (and I suspect we’ll see something similar by MAC in the next six months).

So while MAC doesn’t tout these as long-wearing, they still fall short of just wearing.  I thought long and hard about that one, but if it takes both an eyeshadow base, plus packing of powder eyeshadows on top, to make it more than fifteen minutes–we’re just not functioning.  I’d let it slide if it just didn’t wear to six or eight hours, because long-wear tends to be more like eight to twelve hours, but I can’t even achieve eight with all the bells and whistles without both fading and creasing on the eyes; fading and patchiness on the cheeks (after four hours) and lips (after an hour).  A C- feels generous to me, personally, but that is how the numbers worked out–I’m sure you can sense my disappointment and frustration on this product.  Did we really need two collections of crease city products this year?

The Glossover

coming-soon

MAC Metal-x Cream Eyeshadow Review & Photos

C-
If you're really into editorial looks and you don't mind extra effort, you might still enjoy snagging one of these. The only characteristic they really nail is pigmentation--the majority of shades are really well-pigmented and buildable--but it's just not a very functional product.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

5/10

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 →