Saturday, December 22nd, 2012

Chanel Or Rose Stylo Yeux Waterproof Long-Lasting Eyeliner
Chanel Or Rose Stylo Yeux Waterproof Long-Lasting Eyeliner

Chanel Or Rose Stylo Yeux Waterproof Long-Lasting Eyeliner ($30.00 for 0.01 oz.) is described as a “light rosy beige.” It’s a warm, golden copper; I didn’t get real rosiness–more a mix of champagne, gold, and a copper/bronze aspect that gave it a darker coloring. I couldn’t think of anything similar to this, as nothing in the champagne/nude family compared, and even in my gold eyeliner stash, nothing was quite right (most were much yellower).

I was so hoping to love this, because “rosy beige” sounded like a great way to brighten and open up eyes, but the drier consistency of this made it difficult to apply on the lower lash line. There was a fair amount of pulling and tugging–just not all that comfortable to use. Even swatching, it dragged a little, and the kind of pressure one uses to swatch on the arm is so much more than the amount used on the lash line or lid!

It looked ragged when applied; you know when an eyeliner drags and pulls, so the end result isn’t all that even–the line isn’t crisp and not fully opaque.  The color was great, but the texture needed to be a lot smoother so it could glide on better.  What I did manage to apply stayed on well, though, and I still had the same amount on my lower lash line after eight hours. I couldn’t get this to apply the waterline, though; it just wouldn’t deposit color at all.

The Glossover

LE
product

Or Rose

D+
I was so hoping to love this, because "rosy beige" sounded like a great way to brighten and open up eyes, but the drier consistency of this made it difficult to apply on the lower lash line.

Product

6.5/10

Pigmentation

8/10

Texture

5/10

Longevity

8.5/10

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 →

Monday, September 3rd, 2012


NARS Flowers 2 Eyeshadow Palette

Another Flower Blossoms and Fades

NARS Flowers 2 Eyeshadow Palette ($55.00 for 0.45 oz.) features three shades, which are described as “white and heather blue 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. It is exactly the same shade that is in all three palettes, so note that you will have overlap if you were to purchase all three of at least two colors (the silver-white and gray-ish purple); the finishes of the third palette are slightly more metallic. 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. This shade is exactly the same in all three palettes, though it seems more metallic in finish in the third palette. 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.

The third shade in this palette is a blue-toned icy lavender with a satiny sheen. It had disappointing color payoff, as it was on the sheerer side, but the texture was also stiff and dry, which made applying it more difficult. MAC Blue Orbit is similar but a smidgen darker. MAC Water & Ice is less blue-based. MAC Beautiful Iris is less blue-hued. MAC Digit is lighter.

I would skip this palette and pick up one of the other two, because this only has three shades and two of them overlap with the other ones. (Though, I recommend none, as none of them have high enough quality to merit a purchase.)  This palette was a nightmare to apply and looked horrific after a mere six hours (both over and without primer, but the photo is over a primer, showcasing the best it looked).  The silver shade faded and separated, while the purple shade required a lot of packing to get decent color payoff, but it was hard to blend and faded unevenly.  The gray-purple shade almost disappeared entirely after six hours.

The Glossover

palette

Flowers 2

D+
The quality is completely lacking here; not just in pigmentation and texture, but the actual wear was surprisingly awful. Whether used over bare lids or over NARS' own primer, the eyeshadows wore away well before the six hour mark.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

8/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

4/10

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 →

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit
MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC & Carine Roitfeld: Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit ($44.00 for 0.40 oz.) includes four eyeshadows: Dew (soft creamy beige), Camo (muted grayish taupe), Bad Lieutenant (blackened deep brown), and Carbon (intense black) as well as one Cremeblend Blush, Bootcamp Bronze (soft sheer chestnut).

Dew is a light warm beige with a subtle golden shimmer-sheen. It has a veluxe pearl finish. It’s color payoff is decent, but it’s a little dry and noticeably sheer. MAC Sahara Dust is less warm, less golden. Tarina Tarantino Elektron is similar but more metallic. Wet ‘n’ Wild Comfort Zone has a very similar shade.

Camo is medium brown with a barest hint of gray, but it has a noticeably warm undertone despite the inclusion of gray. It has a satin finish. The color payoff was the best out of the four shades–good overall, slightly dry in texture. Burberry Pale Barley is warmer with more of a shimmery finish. theBalm Sultry is very similar, just slightly darker. Bare Escentuals Namaste is grayer and darker. MAC Era is similar but more shimmery.

Bad Lieutenant is a blackened gray with a hint of burgundy. It has a matte finish. The pigmentation is poor, and the texture dry and stiff. On the lid, it was marginally better, but it was not very blendable. Guerlain by Emilio Pucci is more intense, more of a red undertone. Tarina Tarantino Saw Dust is very similar but more pigmented. MAC Dance in the Dark is comparable. MAC Midnight Flurry is marginally lighter. Wet ‘n’ Wild We’re Blasting Off is more cool-toned.

Carbon is a matte black, but if you look in the pan, there are a lot of sparkles–just none of them seem to translate. It was the oddest thing. This shade is part of the permanent range, and it’s actually included in both of the face kits in the collection, and they were about equal in their dry, stiff, poor color payoff-yielding textures. Slightly more pigmented when I used it on the eye (with a 222 brush), but boy, it did not want to move or budge, which made blending a pain in the butt!

Cremeblend Blushes are supposed to be creamy, easy to blend, have medium coverage, and have a natural finish. Bootcamp Bronze is a medium-dark orange-tan with a strong orange undertone. It’s a bit darker than the shade in the other face kit, but when you apply it to the skin, the difference is minute. While the color is buildable, it’s only to a point, and I’m not sure how well it will show up on darker complexions, as it took some layering to get it to show up on me–and when it does, it’s very faint–and I’m medium in color.  The wear with this shade was the same as Sand Storm: six hours of wear, at which point, there was noticeable separation and fading–and it did not care for having my drier cheeks under it at all.

This palette contains 0.22 oz. of eyeshadows (0.055 oz. each, which is 0.005 oz. more than a regular full-sized MAC eyeshadow), which is a $66 value. There is 0.18 oz. of Cremeblend Blush in here, which normally retails for $20.00/0.19 oz., so there is $18.95 value from that, for a total palette value of $84.95. (Note: Cremeblend blushes and eyeshadows are sold in pan form, depending on the shade, but I went with individual product prices, not pan prices. From a pan perspective, there is $52.80 in eyeshadow value and $16.11 in Cremeblend Blush value, for a total value of $68.91.) From a quantity point of view, this is absolutely a deal, which is great news!

Again, as a quick note: the two palettes are very, very similar with the major difference between in finish–this palette is more matte, while Desert Camouflage is more shimmery. I think this one has less quality than Desert Camouflage, because three shades are lacking in color payoff, and the textures across the board were dry, with some being particularly stiff (like Bad Lieutenant and Carbon).  When I wore these eyeshadows together, they wore for six and a half hours over a primer before starting to look faded.  Without a primer, they were more difficult to apply and blend, but they wore about the same length of time.

The Glossover

palette

Jungle Camouflage

D+
I think this one has less quality than Desert Camouflage, because three shades are lacking in color payoff, and the textures across the board were dry, with some being particularly stiff (like Bad Lieutenant and Carbon).

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

6.5/10

Texture

7/10

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 →

Sunday, August 12th, 2012

NARS Undress Me The Multiple
NARS Undress Me The Multiple

Please Stay Dressed, NARS

NARS Undress Me The Multiple ($39.00 for 0.5 oz.) is described as a “ballerina pink with silver shimmer.” That should be upgraded to silver glitter–it’s much, much chunkier than sparkle. I don’t think I’d describe it as micro-glitter but regular glitter or a mix of small and large-sized glitter particles. The color itself is a pale, just slightly cool-toned, pink. MAC Lazy Sunday has a similar effect and look on, though it has no sparkle. MAC Full of Joy is much cooler-toned, to the point that it looks almost lilac. MAC New Order has gold sparkle and is slightly darker. Make Up For Ever #303 would have a similar effect on cheeks, though it has a frosted finish and is slightly cooler-toned.

Multiples are supposed to work for eyes, cheeks, lips, and body with a cream-to-powder formula that is creamy, has sheer color, and blends effortlessly. Lots and lots of readers love Multiples, and as much as I’d like to fall in love, I haven’t. Maybe I haven’t tried the right shades–Undress Me certainly isn’t one of those right shades. It’s very, very sparkly in a way that emphasizes pores and has noticeable flecks of glitter that just seem randomly dispersed. The glitter also traveled to places unknown (and known places included my hair line, nose, and chin) while I wore it. One of the problems I have with Multiples is their short wear time; Undress Me looked noticeably faded after four hours (and much of the glitter had tried to escape by that point as well) and was completely gone after six hours.

The texture is a little dry; it’s definitely a cream-based product, but it’s stiff. This was agony on the lips; I took photos, but I had visions of the photos making their way into the bowels of the internet. They were… not pretty and were wrong on so many levels. On the lips, it was unbearably dry, and the glitter was gritty. I don’t like Multiples on the lips, but this had to have been the worst I’ve attempted using on lips.

It’s not disco-ball highlighter–it’s something else entirely. I don’t think it’s flattering, and the problem with glitter is that if it’s not catching the light, it just looks like a chunk of silver.  Without the glitter, I think this might be more manageable, but with it, it’s riddled with problems.  The short wear time, traveling glitter, and dry, difficult-to-blend texture make this a no-go for me.  I kept trying to find ways to make it work over the past few weeks, but it was always the same story.  It’s best on bare skin, because it’s most blendable there, and it tended to just smear my liquid foundation around if I used this over it.

The Glossover

LE
product

Undress Me

D+
It's not disco-ball highlighter--it's something else entirely. I don't think it's flattering, and the problem with glitter is that if it's not catching the light, it just looks like a chunk of silver. Without the glitter, I think this might be more manageable, but with it, it's riddled with problems.

Product

6/10

Pigmentation

9/10

Texture

7/10

Longevity

5/10

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 →

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012

MAC Illustrated - Smoky Eye Plum Kit
MAC Illustrated – Smoky Eye Plum Kit

New from MAC – Smoky Eye Plum Kit

MAC Illustrated – Smoky Eye Plum Kit ($49.50) includes three eyeshadows, two travel-sized brushes, Technakohl Eyeliner, and a travel-sized Zoom Lash mascara. It’s a Nordstrom exclusive set and available both in-stores and online. There is another palette available, but it contains all permanent shades, so I only purchased this one for review.

  • Creative Whim is a pale lilac with subtle cool undertones and a soft white frost. It has a satin finish. The color payoff was just so-so–there was obvious sheerness. MAC Dynamic Duo 2 is similar but more metallic in finish, slightly less pink. Tarina Tarantino Diamond Dusk is paler, cooler-toned. MAC Silverwear is lighter.
  • Drawn to Drama is a darkened violet purple with a blue shimmer-sheen. The texture was on the dry side, which you can even see in the swatch, which resulted in decent pigmentation but nothing to get excited over. Urban Decay Ransom is lighter. MAC Pink Union is brighter, more red-toned. MAC Parfait Amour is lighter. Urban Decay Frigid is nearly the same. Estee Lauder Untamed Violet is more subdued.
  • Moody is a brown-tinged medium-dark gray with a satiny sheen. It is a veluxe pearl, and it is also a repromote. The texture of this is not at all like your typical veluxe pearl, because it lacks the buttery, dense feel. The color payoff is lacking, and it’s not usually the case with veluxe pearls that pigmentation is a problem. Instead, Moody feels dry and applies that way, making it difficult to blend out. Shocker of shocks! — it’s from an old nemesis, Evil Eye, where I actually made the same observations then as I did today. MAC Hint of Sapphire and Inglot #434 are most similar to this.
  • Purple Dash is a red-toned plum with subtle shimmer-sheen. This shade is part of the permanent range. Make Up For Ever #4L is just like this shade.  Technakohls tend to wear between six and eight hours on me.

All three eyeshadows are full-sized ($45.00 value), and the eyeliner is also full-sized ($14.50 value). The travel-sized mascara is half the size of a full-sized one ($7.50 value), and it’s hard to put a value on the travel-sized brushes. The brushes were scratchy when I tried using them, and I’m not a huge fan of the 212 as a good multi-purpose/general brush. It’s more of a specific action brush, so I don’t think it makes sense to include it in a set like this (you’d probably one brush to apply eyeshadow and another to blend it out). Though Nordstrom lists the value at $100, I’d put the value around $67 realistically.

While I personally like the collection’s illustrations, this palette is unwieldy. It’s just unnecessarily large, and it really does so in order to hold the brushes, eyeliner, and mascara. This might be something that would have worked better if they had made it a double-decker palette and hidden the brushes and eyeliner underneath the eyeshadow and mascara.  Too bulky to be a great travel palette!

I tried wearing the three shades together, and the nice thing about them is they coordinate well with each other.  The downside is that none of them are good eyeshadows; they’re all disappointing in some way or another.  All three shades suffer from lack of pigmentation, and Drawn to Drama and Moody are very dry and are difficult to blend during application.  Without a primer, they wore seven hours before looking a bit faded. With a primer, they lasted a full eight hours without creasing or fading.

The Glossover

palette

MAC Illustrated's Smoky Eye Plum Kit Review, Photos, Swatches

D+
I don't know if I've ever given so many D+ grades in a week, but here's another one for you! I imagine most will be interested in the palette for the eyeshadows over the travel-sized brushes, mascara, and eyeliner, so go out and buy three good MAC eyeshadows individually and save $4.50. It's not a value if the products included are sub-par.

Product

6.5/10

Pigmentation

7/10

Texture

6.5/10

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 →

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

L'Oreal Perpetual Purple Infallible Eyeshadow
L’Oreal Perpetual Purple Infallible Eyeshadow

L’Oreal Perpetual Purple Infallible Eyeshadow

L’Oreal Perpetual Purple Infallible Eyeshadow ($7.95 for 0.12 oz.) is a darkened violet purple with subtle red undertones and a multi-colored shimmer.  When applied dry, it’s sheer, slightly browner, less violet.  When it’s applied damp/wet, it’s much more intense with a strong violet purple coloring and opaque color payoff. MAC Young Punk is blacker and less violet. Dior Garden Roses is lighter and pinker. MAC Plush is lighter, more red-toned. Urban Decay Delinquent is a little brighter. Urban Decay Psychedelic Sister is very similar, slightly brighter.

L’Oreal says that these wear for up to 24 hours and are long-wearing and intensely pigmented. They’re a hybrid pressed and loose powder; it’s like a very, very finely-milled loose powder that’s been sat on (and in essence, that’s true, because each pot contains a plastic stopper that you can use to press the powder to further compact it). You get the blendability of a loose powder with the ease and convenient of a pressed powder.

I believe this shade is known as Purple Obsession internationally. I have it, and it was actually one of the first shades I tested (many months ago), and I set it aside because it did not work well for me–it did not want to apply evenly at all on the lid, and it was creasing and fading like you wouldn’t believe. When I recently tried Perpetual Purple (and I didn’t know they were the same), I had a similar experience. It fades surprisingly quickly, and when I wore it alone (just by itself), I did have significant creasing after a mere six hours. When I used it in the crease with other Infallible Eyeshadows, it didn’t crease.  The texture of Perpetual Purple was also on the dry side, so it wasn’t as easy to blend or apply.

For a comparison against Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense, please see this post. As a quick summary, L’Oreal’s colors can be less nuanced/have less depth, and then the wear is can be inconsistent with L’Oreal (some wearing fantastic, others creasing/fading more rapidly). The way I look at it (assuming you wear primer, because then the wear is usually fine), the more the merrier!

Edited:  The picture that showed the wear was MISSING! Now it’s there in all of its disappointing glory.

The Glossover

P
product

Perpetual Purple

D+
Thankfully, L'Oreal's Infallible Eyeshadow range includes more than just this shade (and I wish this hadn't been my first experience with them, because I would have made these more of a priority to begin with), because this one is definitely disappointing. Poor wear: fading, creasing, and poor color payoff.

Product

7/10

Pigmentation

8/10

Texture

8.5/10

Longevity

4/10

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 →

Page 5 of 8« First34567Last »