Chanel Chelsea Glossimer Review, Photos, Swatches
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer ($28.50 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “brilliant pink lipgloss [that] delivers the ultimate pop of colour, along with subtle shimmer and a high-shine glow.” I have no idea what Chanel was seeing, because this gloss is nearly colorless when applied. At best, and I feel like I’m being generous, it emphasizes the natural pinkness of your lip color, but the reality is it looks like clear gloss with a shiny finish. The shimmer is not just subtle but barely there; there were maybe four or five flecks on my lips when I applied the gloss.
Chanel says that this “striking hue is named for a thriving artistic and cultural area of London.” It’s very, very striking in the tube, but that is where it ends. The whole concept reminded me of Gloss Fluo de Chanel from 2010, where the tubes were vibrant and neon, but the product itself was very sheer. It feels like a Glossimer: smooth, non-sticky, comfortable. It’s thick without being heavy; glides on without slipping around. The wear is about an hour and a half when I tested this shade. If Chanel wanted to indicate this was sheer, perhaps “brilliant pink,” “ultimate pop of color,” and “striking hue” were not the best descriptions. I felt a bit duped myself after I purchased this and then swatched it.
Chelsea
LELimited Edition. $30.00.
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Chanel Chelsea Glossimer
Maybe it looks like a pop of color if you’re a ghost. lol I wonder if the marketing people actually look and try on the products before coming up with some of these ideas.
Omg it’s so disappointing to see how sheer it is on the lips, it would be a must have if it had a medium to full coverage! 🙁
How disappointing! Glossimers are my HG lipgloss!
It seems no coloured…
What a waste of money in my opinion. I mean someone would pay so much for that and it’s really not great at all! I had a €1.50 h&m lipgloss that looked better than that. Thanks for the honest review again!
it’s actually kind of funny how disappointing it is.
Hard Candy makes a Fortune Telling Lipgloss in Kismet or Fate that give you the same ultra sheer wet look. They are discontinued however. lol
The tube makes you think it’s bright…. What a let down! So sheer!
How bizarre that they would market a nearly-clear gloss like that. So odd!
Agreed. If it’s gonna be super sheer, why on earth are you describing it like that along with making it look like that in the tube?!
Now don’t get me wrong, I love how it looks in the tube; but wtf, at least describe it accurately.
Wow. Way to mislead there, Chanel. 🙁
Oh wow, I can imagine it being a nasty shock to purchase something that looks like neon bright pink only to have it turned out like a transparent gloss! Boo for Chanel on this one!
Wow, it looks SO gorgeous in the bottle – I’m glad I read the rest of your review, thanks for saving me $28.50! What a disappointment!
When I saw the picture I thought it was going to be a repromote of the fluos! I’m disappointed – I lost my pink flu glossimer ages ago. 🙁
Hmm, to spend probably £20~ on this, or to buy any other gloss from any drugstore brand……….
This looks soooo super-duper gorgeous in the tube. Such a big, humongous let down!!! 🙁 Well, at least I don’t have to spend the money on it!
Gosh…talk about false advertising!
Christine, you’re a smart chickie. How could you fall for this one LOL? It’s Gloss Fluo de Chanel and Dior Crystal Gloss and Lip Addict (I think that’s what the roll-on one is called). Different texture, same scam.
Hey! They said it was brilliant! Striking! LOL!
Sometimes I wonder if anyone from the brand actually tests the products before they’re released to the public.
That… is sooo dissapointing!! I feel like most of the glossimers are super sheer though :/
It looks absolutely gorgeous in the tube, but its soooo sheer that i couldn’t even justify spending the 28 bucks for basically a clear gloss. Disappointing :'( I love me some hot pink lip gloss.
Wow, what a misrepresentation!
Christine,you said that you bought it first and then you swatched it…I was wondering, why didn’t you swatch it at the Chanel counter,there and then? unless you bought it online,which makes it an entirely different story…
I bought it online – I wouldn’t swatch it in store anyway, since I bought the entire collection to review. I’m not buying for personal use! I very rarely buy anything any more just for personal use, as I either review it or skip it since there’s no real point in buying something just for myself because I won’t be able to use it more than a couple of times – I’d rather spend money on something to review. 🙂 I believe the Knightsbridge collection is online only and perhaps at a few Chanel boutiques.
but do you keep them? wow, if you do then i guess you’d have 5000 products hmmm. i guess it’s not possible 🙂 tho i would myself even if it took a room to deposit them(only the A rated ones of course)
I don’t return products that I review – it seems unethical to do so, IMO! I’ve only done so in rare cases where the product was exceptionally, exceptionally bad, but usually I feel so badly about it that I just donate or recycle.
yeah…i wouldn’t return them either if they’re of nice quality and yes, maybe they’d think you returned them because they’re bad even tho they’re good. ohh, donating ^_^ that;s so nice of you 😀 good make-up is one of the best things to receive :)) hmmm, now i wish i lived there
oh,I see…!I have to say I really admire your dedication! I thought that most of the stuff you review was sent to you by the companies for consideration and that you only bought few items yourself!!! apparently it is the other way around…anyway,the mere fact that you spend so much money buying things just to review them and keep your readers informed is truly commendable!!!
There is still a large percentage that I purchase – especially with certain brands (MAC is by far the biggest expense – I still purchase 80-90% of the products you see here on the blog; Chanel is probably second). It’s always listed at the end of each post whether it was a sample – if you don’t see that it was, it means I purchased it 🙂
I agree 🙂 she is awesome and this is the best review site i know 😀
Wow what a let-down! A bouquet of drugstore brand glosses cost the same price as that one Chanel and have way better color payoff!
Aww, this is so disappointing! Christine, what are some shades of Chanel’s Glossimers that you would recommend to someone who’s never tried them before? I’m interested in giving them a shot, and I wanna know which ones represent the formula best.
Actually, scratch that–which would you prefer, these or the Bobbi Brown High Shimmer lipglosses?
I actually prefer BB’s! 🙂 They last a wee bit longer, have a nice mint scent, cost less, AND contain more product. The formulas are pretty similar, though BB’s seems a touch less thick.
I don’t even know what to say.. Wow? LOL? I don’t know, this is just that much of a disappointment!
Haha what the heck? My Bobbi Brown Cosmic Pink from Neons & Nudes is a sheer neon pink but is a helluva lot brighter than this!
Though I must say this is a perfect literal MLBB for you, since it slightly brightens and smooths big time…but that’s about all it does, isn’t it!!
The difference between the colour in the tube and the actual colour when swatched is unbelievable. I feel bad for the poor soul who will spend almost $30 on this expecting a hot pink colour and instead gets a barely-there pink.
That’s such a disappointment! The color looks so gorgeous in the tube.
When I saw the pic of the tube, I thought WOW. Then I clicked through and….. lol whut happened :-/
LOL! FAIL for channel
at least it’s not so shimmery…i like how it looks actually but it’s a waste of money
looked cool in the tube
So mad! I ordered it too because it’s my name lol
Ooooh, this is as good a post as any to get some ranting on. This gloss is a pretty egregious example of what can go wrong with many high-end brands and their products’ pigmentation.
Since this is about as obvious as an example as you can get, a NEON PINK gloss that applies nearly transparent, I doubt there will be any apologists on this post in particular. But it’s an annoying trend, products where the pigmentation isn’t there. It’s an overwhelmingly obvious failure here…however, were the tube slightly less bright, someone would undoubtedly come along to claim that the brand or the piece was merely intended for someone who wants a subtle look.
I saw folks claiming that with the failure of a Mac palette that you reviewed not too long ago. Here’s the deal, if the product fails to achieve the color it presents as, I believe it’s a packaging/marketing failure, full-stop. If a customer wants subtle, it’ll be reflected in the shade selection they make. While I believe there is still a place for a sheer product, it should be heavily marketed as a sheer, natural looks-enhancing product. (Drugstore example, but first thing on the top of my head: the Physician’s Formula eyeshadow that’s marketed as more of an eye brightener. Haven’t used it, but totally expect it to be sheerer than the mottled white it presents in pan.)
Products lacking pigmentation only even show up on those of us who have little pigmentation on our skin to begin with. No one’s going to pick up a hot pink lipgloss (Chanel) or a quad with grays and purple (Mac) and not want to actually have a hot pink lipgloss or eyeshadow that actually applies gray and purple. What reason is there to make product like this? I don’t even know why this happens, do they not catch the utter failure in the product until after they’ve mass manufactured it or something? I wouldn’t accept this sort of thing buying a no-name like Aziza at Dollar Tree, let alone paying the price tags asked by Mac or Chanel.
The only thing I can think of is for the novelty of having a gloss that looks really bright and neon in the tube for someone who doesn’t or wouldn’t actually wear a neon pink gloss, so they can appreciate the look of it in their purse or whatever but still be able to use. I do agree with you that it needs to be very clearly marketed that way! Brands come out with press releases, so there’s no reason not to include something like “sheer pink” as a description. Although, on the other hand, these marketing materials aren’t exactly present when you go to the counter. Perhaps you buy a lipstick or two, then that hot pink gloss catches your eye and you buy without swatching – oops!
Most products can be used sheer, too – you can usually subdue a product or use a fluffier brush if you really want a barely-there color, but few sheer products can go the other way. And so, if MAC, who was known as an artistry brand that describes their eyeshadow as pigmented, suddenly wants to put out sheer, barely-there eyeshadow, they should certainly let us all know! All in all, products need to be marketed properly – this way expectations are set and we know what we’re getting ourselves into. It’s just like when companies make crazy claims like 24 hour wear. Why not claim 12 hours of fantastic wear? Or 16? I always feel like 24 hour claims are really just to hammer in that it is a long-wearing product. Besides, I don’t want to wear makeup to bed! 😉
It just seems a bit odd that Chanel of all brands would be marketing on novelty packaging. Then, the ad copy is still an outright fabrication! And I still want my novel-packaged product to do what it’s supposed to do, if my UD Pocket Rockets weren’t shimmery or pigmented when they were supposed to be, who cares about the half-naked dude on the tube? (I can’t think of any other product that screams “novelty lipgloss” like UD Pocket Rockets.)
I wasn’t even going to touch application technique, but, sure, with a little bit of skill you can go really subtle with just about anything. (Which actually makes it a shame that MAC has their artists touting failure palette as being great. It’s eyeshadow like that which left me avoiding powder shadows for years.) However, even with a buildable product, it’s hard to make anything more than a layer or two not look packed on. No amount of layers will salvage this particular gloss, anyway.
It’s been said there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but a product like this leaves me leery of the whole line. Probably a shame, because Chanel appears to have some nice products, but I’d probably have to commute at least an hour to get anywhere with a Chanel counter. If I can’t swatch the stuff, and they produce a product like this, I don’t think I’d ever risk an online buy.
Completely understand 🙂 I’m very much in agreement with what you said before! I’ve seen enough neon-but-not-really glosses from various brands (Chanel, Guerlain, more recently, Bobbi Brown, which I haven’t personally tested but know they’re described as sheer), so I’d love to know why they insist on making them look so bright in the tube!
At this price point, you definitely need to love your products! If you’re ever near a Chanel counter, the brand is certainly worth a look — I highly recommend their Rouge Allure lipstick range (very opaque, comfortable). I like their single eyeshadows, too, but they tend to have a more subdued range, which can sometimes seem dupeable at lower price points (depending on the size of your stash, of course).
ARGH!!! This looks so amazing in the tube… Then on the lips it’s just a regular sheer light pink…
I disagree with the “any sheer gloss” though, since all sheer glosses look different.
So misleading! Come on, Chanel….a company like this should know better.
I was looking at the color in the tube and kept thinking how amazing it would look. And I actually thought “hmm maybe the all the pics didn’t finish loading” until I read the review part
Chanel’s lipglosses cost way too much and are not pigmented enough they all look clear on my lips, which sucks.
Whoa. The color in the tube made my heart skip a beat! Then I saw your grade, and still wasn’t expecting such a major disappointment. This looks like a huge joke. Who at Chanel thought this was remotely a good idea?
This is so awful, I just have to laugh. It makes me want to “pop” the advertising exec who came up with this snake-oil deception in THEIR mouth! “Striking” indeed! When will the beauty industry stop playing cosmetic fans for fools?
omg.. this is crap. What was Chanel thinking??
Whuuut! It looked SO promising! I’m disappointed. Thanks for the review.
I have a better suggestion if you want sheer color. NARS has a lip gloss called “Easy Lover” and it’s a nice compliment to lipsticks like NARS Schiap. Quite neon pink, and at $24.00 USD, you get more product (0.28 oz).
but it’s so bright in my monitor then on your lips it’s like nothing.. :C so sad.. it looked promising too!!
Omg I absolutely love the color of the tube! (: If the gloss itself actually looked like that I’d definitely want it.. 🙁 Toi bad it doesn’t. Lol
Wow. I don’t even understand how it’s possible for a gloss to look so vibrant in the tube and yet be so unpigmented. It;s amazing in the worst way.
This looked so amazing in the dupe and so pointless when swatched. I would never pay such a high price for what is basically a clear gloss (especially on my pigmented lips) How disappointing 🙁
OMG, that’s awful! Thx for saving me $$!
This is a striking natural look!! Cool and flawless cheek and eye color!!! May I ask what foundation and powder you used? Mine of 1month has dried out my skin, really sad because I loved it so much. (EL double matte) I need a longwearing foundation that wont destroy my face! Thanks for the honest reviews 😀
Wow, I can’t believe the difference between the colour in the tube and the colour on your lips! The colour in the tube is one I’d make a bee-line for, so thank you so much for saving me from making an expensive mistake.
I often find cosmetic companies’ colour descriptions don’t match what I see, but to not tell customers that such a bright looking lipgloss is actually sheer is completely misleading.
I like how the only praise you can give it amounts to something along the lines of, “This is a great gloss for people who don’t like getting a return for their money.”
Sigh…. another “look how bright this is but don’t worry it’s really sheer and boring as to not scare anyone off” product.
Wow. Sometimes I make custom lipgloss, and I wouldn’t know how to get one to look that vibrant on the tube with such sheer pay off. And I really am curious to know. Maybe I’ll go to the stand and take a look at the ingredients, it is such an uncanny deception. Must be something like no real pigment and lots of light reflecting coloring. So weird. Bad Chanel!
I don’t ring in on alot of things but this had me compelled….I was almost dancing at that color until I saw the swatches….How dare they do that to my eyes like that. How deceptive….
How does this compare to Pink Fluo from a year ago (or two) also from Chanel? Kinda looks the same in the bottle from the pic I saw above.
Color is similar but the formula is very different!
i wonder what the chemical composition of this gloss is to make it seem really bright in the tube…
Lol at your dupe suggestion. 😀
Over a bright lip this is great!!! I am all about layering though. If you are hoping for an opaque color this is not for you, but as a super shiny gloss that enhances a bright color this is a great choice. :-))