Monday, September 17th, 2012

Tom Ford Exotic Teal Eye Defining Pencil
Tom Ford Exotic Teal Eye Defining Pencil

Tom Ford Exotic Teal Eye Defining Pencil

Tom Ford Exotic Teal Eye Defining Pencil ($35.00 for 0.04 oz.) is a rich, blue-based teal with a pearly finish. Prescriptives Blue Grotto is similar, slightly greener. NARS Kaliste is a smidgen lighter. Estee Lauder Electric Teal is less blue, slightly lighter. I can’t tell you how long I’ve been looking for an eyeliner that dupes Prescriptives’ Blue Grotto!  (NARS Kaliste wears terribly on me, unfortunately.)

It’s supposed to be richly pigmented, easy to glide on, and can be used outside and inside the lid.  The color is fantastic–it’s intensely pigmented and goes as as solid line in a single pass. The texture is soft, creamy, and applies easily; there’s no tugging or pulling, and it deposits evenly on both the lash line and waterline.  The pencil also comes with a sharpener, but as mine was a press sample, I only received the pencil itself, so I don’t have a photo of it to share with you but did want to mention it.

I wanted to love this pencil so, so much, but it does not wear as well as it should.  It migrates and smudges outwards past my lash line every time I wear it, without fail.  The color doesn’t disappear or fade away, but it just spreads out past the lash line. For me, it happens mostly on the outer third of the lash line, but a whole slew of eyeliners wear well on me.  A smudgy kohl liner isn’t a bad thing, but it does need to set at some point, because once you’ve smudged it to your liking, you don’t want to worry about it sliding to parts unknown!  It took about five hours before there was noticeable migration, and then after six, it needed clean-up.  If you press a similar-colored eyeshadow on top, it will stop the smudging. With so many long-wearing eyeliners on the market, it’s not a step you should have to take–and of course, at $35 a pop, not at this price point, either.

The Glossover

LE
product

Exotic Teal

C

This eyeliner had amazing pigmentation and a lovely, creamy, glide-on consistency, but the wear was extremely disappointing!

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

10/10

Longevity

4/10

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, September 2nd, 2012


NARS Flowers 1 Eyeshadow Palette

The First of Three Flower Palettes

NARS Flowers 1 Eyeshadow Palette ($55.00 for 0.45 oz.) features five different shades with a black overlay over one shade (the background shade). The palette is a variation on Warhol’s painting Flowers (1965), and this one is described as a “white, brown rose, dark lavender, and gold against a shimmering lavender grey background and black overspray.”

The first shade is a bright silver-white with a frosted finish. It had good color payoff, but it was a bit powdery. There are several similar shades, including MAC Crystal Avalanche (slightly cooler-toned), Buxom Sheepdog, Maybelline Too Cool (a bit cool-toned and more metallic in finish), theBalm Sassy, MAC Forgery (has a grittier texture), and theBalm Tempting Tara.

The shade in the background (which has the black powder overlay) is a gray-ish purple with a pearled finish. The pigmentation was decent, but it was powdery and on the sheerer side. Urban Decay AC/DC is similar but more pigmented and less subdued. theBalm Matt Patel is darker, grayer. NARS Charade is matte and has less gray in it. MAC Joy & Laughter is a smidgen grayer. MAC Winterized is a touch darker.

One flower is purple, and when swatched, it is a sheer violet purple with a soft satiny sheen–it is really quite stiff as far as the texture went, and the color payoff was dismal. I really had to pack it on to get any color to show up on the lid, and it had to have a base used under it to get any visible color. Clarins Enchanted Summer is more intense, stronger red undertone. Tarina Tarantino Violet Storm is brighter, more opaque. MAC Plush is more pigmented and a smidgen more red-toned.

Another flower is a rusty red with subtle warm, orange undertones and a soft, frosted finish. This shade had the best pigmentation out of the five shades in the palette. MAC Spicy Smoke is comparable. Milani Primary is a bit redder. MAC Raving Mad is more orange. Urban Decay Gash is more burgundy.

The third flower is a bright pop of sunshine yellow with a soft sheen. This had good color payoff, but it was somewhat powdery and loose. It’s best to pat it on, rather than sweep. Illamasqua Hype is similar but matte. Make Up For Ever #24 is a little darker, warmer. MAC Bright Sunshine is a smidgen lighter. Wet ‘n’ Wild Bright Idea is slightly softer. Inglot #323 is a bit darker and has a matte finish.

I know a lot of readers are really excited for the collaboration between NARS and Andy Warhol, and I wanted to like the palette, but I didn’t.  Some shades were sheer, others were powdery, and a couple of them were less blendable than I’d like (or even expect from NARS).  The silver is kind of chunky; it adheres in a way that emphasizes the texture of the skin, while the yellow needs to be patted on to avoid a powderiness (and blending it is difficult, because it disappears).  The purple was the most disappointing shade out of the five, because it was sheer, stiff, and dry–it didn’t want to apply (and faded almost instantly), and it was hard to blend it once on the lid. I had to use primer (NARS’) underneath the purple shade just to get color to show up.  The best-performing shade was the rusted red, which had good color payoff, fairly smooth texture, and was easy to blend.  The wear was all over the map; the purple faded so quickly (even over a primer!), while the rusted red shade was slightly faded after six hours, and the silver-white shade had some post-application fall out (minor but noticeable), and the yellow shade didn’t seem to fade too much after six hours.

NARS gives you plenty of product in the compact, which is over-sized (larger than their blushes), so for your $55, you’re getting nearly half an ounce of eyeshadow, which works out to be ~$122/oz., while a duo works out to be ~$243/oz. (Trios are the worst value at ~$265/oz.) You’re just not getting the highest quality product.  For the most part, each color is accessible enough to work with when using eyeshadow brushes, but you will get excess powder kicked up, so you may find that some of the colors mix.  I recommend using a large face brush to brush off the black overlay, because it just makes everything kind of sooty the first time you use it.

The Glossover

palette

Flowers 1

C
I think if you're a big fan of NARS and Andy Warhol, then it might appeal as a collectible. I think if you're just concerned about the overall quality, then it's something I would skip over.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

8/10

Texture

7.5/10

Longevity

7/10

Application

3.5/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
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 27th, 2012

Giorgio Armani #29 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow
Giorgio Armani #29 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow

It’s Not True Love with Love Potion #29

Giorgio Armani #29 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow ($32.00 for 0.14 oz.) is a pale pink with subtle yellow undertones and a white metallic shimmer-sheen. Giorgio Armani #7 is darker, while #11 is much whiter (I think a combination of the two would get you close). MAC Invicible Light is very close in color but less metallic.

I may have raved about this formula last time (with #24), but not all is equal in the range, and there are some less-than-stellar shades. I haven’t come across a really big flop, but this is likely one of the least impressive shades I’ve tried. #29 lacks pigmentation; it has decent color payoff, but it’s not intense, and it’s not fully opaque. It was difficult to apply, which is really where I had trouble–it bunches up! It just does this thing where it gathers over itself rather than smoothing out for an even layer of color. It happened when I used it wet as well as dry, though it was worse when I used it wet.

The wear was decent to good, though it was harder to tell, because it already gathered noticeably and highlighted the creases I have in my inner lid area from the get-go. After twelve hours, it didn’t fade, but the creasing did seem to get a little more noticeable over time and the product seemed to migrate upwards slightly. It’s not what I’d call consistent with past shades I’ve tried at all, and for that, such a let-down.

The Glossover

LE
product

#29

C
This may be the most disappointing shade I've tried from the Eyes to Kill Intense line-up, where the majority have been good to great but #29 really falls short. It has a tendency to move and bunch up on itself, which gives a very uneven result in color.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

8/10

Texture

8/10

Longevity

8/10

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 →

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

MAC Mineralize Eyeshadows
MAC Heavenly Creatures Mineralize Eyeshadows

MAC Heavenly Creatures Mineralize Eyeshadows

MAC Heavenly Creatures Mineralize Eyeshadows ($20.00 for 0.06 oz.) features nine shades: Aurora (peach, green, brown melange), Bright Moon (grey, silver, icy green melange), Earthly (beige, peach, cool brown melange), Invincible Light (icy white, lavender, warm gold melange), Magnetic Attraction (orange, pink, gold melange), Neo Nebula (cream, warm amethyst, warm pink melange), Sky (green-gold, turquoise, cobalt melange), Universal Appeal (gold, bronze, violet melange), and Water (yellow, lime green, blue melange).

  • Aurora is a warm, golden medium-dark brown with a soft champagne sheen. It has swirls of light yellow-toned pink, dirty olive brown, and red-brown. It’s on the sheer side when applied dry, but it’s more opaque when applied wet. Dior Aurora is slightly darker. Buxom Golden Retriever is a touch darker, more red-toned. MAC Heavenly Bliss is a bit lighter, less warm. MAC Love Connection is more frosted, so it looks a bit lighter and more metallic. Milani Fusion is slightly more metallic.
  • Bright Moon is a cool-toned silver-shimmered gray-blue. It has swirls of gray-blue, silver, and aqua-blue. When applied dry, it has good color payoff, and when it’s applied dry, it has better pigmentation and applies more smoothly. The metallic finish is more apparent when it is used wet. It looks just like MAC Frozen Blue, which might be a smidgen more silver, but they’re really close. Urban Decay Crystal is less blue.
  • Earthly is a gray-tinted medium-dark brown with a pearly metallic sheen. The swirls are gray-beige, copper, and dark brown. It has good color payoff both wet and dry. MAC Caviar Dreams is a bit darker. Bare Escentuals A-Ha is warmer, darker. MAC Magical Mist is similar but more subdued.
  • Invincible Light is a pale warm pink with a subtle golden shimmer. It’s pretty sheer when applied dry and better when applied wet, but it isn’t as smooth as I’d like–slightly gritty. It has swirls of ivory, copper, pink, and lavender. MAC Star Crystal is grayer. Bobbi Brown Black Ruby is pinker.
  • Magnetic Attraction is a coppery coral-red with subtle golden shimmer. It has decent to good pigmentation when used dry (it looks more orange), and great color payoff when used wet. It has swirls of raspberry pink, golden yellow, and coppery orange. MAC Spicy Smoke is more intense. Milani I Heart You is redder. MAC In the Sun is darker, browner. MAC Red Hot Copper is similar but darker. MAC Coppering is more intense.
  • Neo Nebula is a slightly mauve-y pink with a metallic finish. It has swirls of light pink, medium warm pink, and mauvy plum. When used dry, it’s very sheer, but when used wet, it’s smoother and more pigmented. MAC Rose Light is slightly pinker. Inglot #399 is pinker and darker. Giorgio Armani #7 is more muted. MAC Pink Union is slightly more purple and darker. MAC Circa Plum is darker, grayer.
  • Sky is a faded blue with a hint of green with a green-gold shimmer. It has swirls of light-medium green, electric blue, and cobalt blue. The color payoff is sheer when used dry, and it’s better when wet, but it’s still not fully opaque. Urban Decay Shattered is a bit more teal. Guerlain Les Ombres de Nuit doesn’t have the same gold shimmer.
  • Universal Appeal is a smoky eggplant purple with golden shimmer. It has swirls of yellowy green, dark brown, orange, and purple. When applied dry, it’s very brown and on the sheer side, while when wet, it takes on a purple hue. MAC Azuki Bean is a smidgen darker. theBalm Curvy Cami is purpler.
  • Water is a dark but muted blue-green. It has swirls of yellowy chartreuse, chartreuse, mint green, and navy blue. The color payoff is atrocious when used dry, and it’s decent when used wet. Illamasqua Android is much more opaque and intense. Urban Decay Hijack is more opaque and intense. Urban Decay Loaded is more intense, more blackened in base color.

Whenever I have Mineralize Eyeshadows to review, I think it’s important disclose that I generally do not have a lot of success with them. They always look absolutely phenomenal in the pan; they’re amazing products to photograph, but application tends to be disappointing.  I know that there are readers who, on the other hand, enjoy these eyeshadows immensely and look forward to the mineralize-themed collections that MAC puts out.  The reasons I don’t like these is:  lack of color payoff, fall out, and poor wear (fading/creasing, mostly fading). Not all shades perform the same; some are better, some are way worse.

I did three looks, where I used three shades for each one.  When I wore Bright Moon, Sky, and Earthly together, they held up so-so over time.  There was noticeable fading, slight creasing with Bright Moon after six hours, while Sky was less faded and no real creasing to speak off. Earthly was fairly faded.  I had about the same results whether I applied over bare lids or over a primer (NARS Smudgeproof). Sky stains the lid, even when used over a primer.

When I wore Magnetic Attraction, Aurora, and Water in a look, they, too, held up okay but not well.  Magnetic Attraction was the best, with only minor fading but no creasing after eight hours.  Aurora was looking faded after eight hours, while Water was barely visible–not to mention it was such a pain to apply and to get to show up at all from the very beginning. The texture and feel of Water just didn’t work well; it was a little gritty and dry.  The wear didn’t seem to improve with or without a primer; both were in the same state after eight hours.  Water also stains the skin, just as a heads up.

The last trio I used included Invicible Light, Neo Nebula, and Universal Appeal.  Invincible Light is very prone to fall out, and it can accentuate any texture on the lids, because it doesn’t apply smoothly. I was able to get plenty of color out of it by using it wet, but it did have some of its own problems.  Neo Nebula and Universal Appeal were easier to use on the lid.  However, the whole look lasted about five hours and had nearly disappeared after eight hours–and the photos are of the shades over primer (and the eye without primer looked the same).

It’s a shame that there were wear issues with these. I thought a lot of these were more blendable this time around than in previous releases.  Some shades had decent to good color payoff when dry, as well as wet.  None of it lasted a full eight hours, though, and some were nearly gone entirely after eight hours.  I don’t know if there are many products that I’m as desperate to fall in love with as MAC’s Mineralize Eyeshadows. They look gorgeous in their pots. They’re absolutely stunning to behold.  I know people love them. I want to love them, but I just can’t.

The Glossover

product

MAC Heavenly Creatures Mineralize Eyeshadows Review, Photos, Swatches

C
I don't know if there are many products that I'm as desperate to fall in love with as MAC's Mineralize Eyeshadows. They look gorgeous in their pots. They're absolutely stunning to behold. I know people love them. I want to love them, but I just can't.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

8/10

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 →

Monday, June 25th, 2012

Tom Ford Illicit Cream Color
Tom Ford Illicit Cream Color

Tom Ford Illicit Cream Color ($40.00 for 0.21 oz.) is a bronze and burgundy shimmered medium-dark brown with warm, red undertones. When it’s sheered out, it’s less red-toned. NARS Surabaya is similar but less metallic. Make Up For Ever #14 is slightly darker. Le Metier de Beaute Bordeaux is redder.

Tom Ford describes the formula as “highly reflective,” “ultra-pigmented”, “non-creasing”, and “long-wearing.”  This shade has a shimmery, sparkly finish that does reflect light, but not to the same degree as Platinum.  The pigmentation is so-so; it is buildable, but it was difficult to get really opaque color, because the color kept slipping around, so it looked more smeared on and opaque in some places but sheered out in others.  I had noticeable creasing after six hours (as compared to minor creasing after eight hours with Platinum), which was a major bummer.

The consistency is a lightweight cream, almost more like a mousse because of its airy quality, that spreads and smooths out easily and evenly.  To apply, I tried using a few different brushes but still went back to MAC’s 242, which is a firm, flat bristled brush, because it gave me the “best” results.  The product stays wet for hours, though for as wet as it feels and seems (if you pressed your fingertip against your lid, there would be transfer), it stays on longer than you’d expect. It’s not great, and it’s not worth the $40 price tag for something that’s supposed to be long-wearing and isn’t.

It’s packaged in a screw-top glass jar and holds a little more than the average cream eyeshadow does. I’m a little surprised to see that the TF logo is a sticker pressed on top. At first, I thought it was just a clear sticker over the actual TF, but I peeled it all the way off and the entire thing came off.

The Glossover

LE
product

Illicit

C

I have no problem shelling out for a high quality product, but I'm always very disappointed when I see an extremely high price tag on a poor performing product. I also think that for the price point, the packaging needs some improvement.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

8.5/10

Texture

10/10

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 →

Sunday, June 10th, 2012

Lancome Dress-up Teal (401) Liner Design Long Wear Calligraphy Gel Eyeliner
Lancome Dress-up Teal (401) Liner Design Long Wear Calligraphy Gel Eyeliner

Lancome Dress-up Teal (401) Liner Design Long Wear Calligraphy Gel Eyeliner

Lancome Dress-up Teal (401) Liner Design Long Wear Calligraphy Gel Eyeliner ($24.50 for 0.07 oz.) is described simply as “turquoise.” It’s a very subtly green-tinted blue, less than what I’d envision teal being (which is a perfect–and hard to achieve–balance of blue and green). If you’re familiar with bluer turquoise gem stones, the color is reminiscent of those. There is a faint teal shimmer throughout. Urban Decay Flipside is a little more teal. It looks like it does in the pot, which is fairly blue, but the name says “teal,” so I was a bit disappointed to see it apply as more of a blue hue.

The texture is creamy, smooth, and has a slightly thicker consistency than a lot of other gel eyeliners I’ve come across. I used MAC’s 266 to draw a line across my lid, and it applied evenly, opaquely, and didn’t skip or tug. Lancome states that the formula is long-wearing (up to twelve hours), smudge-proof, and waterproof. After six hours of wear, there was some transfer of the liner to my crease. I also wore on my lower lash line, and it appeared to wear better, but there was some faint smudging and fading after eight hours. I can’t say I cried a river when testing these, so I ran some water over the swatch and blotted lightly with a tissue, and the swatch was still intact and looked fairly good.

It’s packaged in a (mostly) clear glass pot with a shiny black screw-top lid.  It contains slightly less product than other popular gel eyeliners (both Bobbi Brown and MAC’s contain 0.10 oz. compared to Lancome’s, which has only 0.07 oz.), which is a bit of a bummer.

The Glossover

P
product

Dress-Up Teal

C
The wear was disappointing, and I wasn't expecting Lancome to have issues here. They're such a well-established brand, and gel eyeliners can be found from many brands, so I was totally surprised when this struggled to perform well on wear.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

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 →