Chanel Urban Ombre Premiere Longwear Cream Eyeshadow ($36.00 for 0.14 oz.) is a blackened navy with cooler undertones and fine lighter blue and silver pearl. It had semi-opaque pigmentation in a single layer, but the more emollient consistency made it difficult to build up coverage. The problem with such a deep shade having a cream base and being less than full coverage was that it always looked patchy and uneven. This might work as a base under other deeper shades or more shimmery eyeshadows, but on its own, it looked disastrous on the lid. That disaster lasted for a solid 14 hours on me and looked the same across that length of time, but it lacked the blendability necessary to m ake this type of color work as a standalone product.
Chanel describes the formula as a “smooth-textured cream shadow [that] glides on effortlessly” and is “long-wearing.” Overall, the consistency has moderate slip–emollient but not greasy or overly wet in feel–and feels more like a traditional cream eyeshadow than Chanel’s Illusion d’Ombres. They go on as a thin layer but have fairly good pigmentation. The formula dried down quite quickly leaving little time for blending or diffusing edges, even when working one eye at a time, which was where I struggled. I think some of them tended to work better as lid colors and using something else for a more diffused/blended out crease color. They did, however, wear impeccably for as long as fourteen hours on me–no creasing, fading, or flaking.
Milk Makeup Silent Disco Eye Pigment ($24.00 for 0.34 oz.) is a blackened plum with warm, brown undertones and flecks of plum and pink sparkle. It had semi-opaque pigmentation, but it was hard to control the coverage and evenness on the lid except if I used a fingertip to sheer it out (but then it looked blotchy as this type of color often does at sheerer coverage levels). The larger sparkles seemed to impede the application and made the product lift from the area whenever I tried to even it out. It did not build up well, as it made the dried down texture uneven and chunky-looking. It lasted decently for nine hours but some larger pieces of product started to flake off.
The formula is supposed to be a “highly pigmented cream eyeshadow” that is “long-wearing” with a “soft, silky texture” that will dry “quickly without creasing” but is still “easily blendable.” I bought five shades (there are 11 in the range) and had good luck with three of them and found two to be more troublesome to use. It seemed like the more pearly shades were easier to use than the ones with larger sparkles. I wasn’t sure if the squeeze tube format was going to work, but it was fairly easy to dispense product without getting too much at once but product can get dried out and clog the opening.
The texture was smooth, creamy, and emollient enough to spread easily across the lid. They dried down quickly but I did not feel too rushed (I would still work one eye at a time, though). I noticed that they felt a bit heavier on the lids and had a tendency to cling and emphasize any texture on my lids (most noticeable on the inner portion of my lids). They lasted between nine and eleven hours on me with one of the more glittery shades crumbling over time. I applied mine using a flat, synthetic brush (like MAC 242) as well as fingertips, though I personally prefer brushes so that is what I reached for most of the time.
Milk Makeup Hotel Lobby Eye Pigment ($24.00 for 0.34 oz.) is a light, champagne gold with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. The texture was creamy enough to spread easily across the lid but did not feel overly wet or slippery, so it applied with rich, opaque coverage. I felt like this shade was very, very pigmented and a little went a long way (out of all five that I tried). I had no trouble applying this on the lid with a brush, but it worked well as an all over lid color applied with fingertips. On me, the color was still going strong after twelve hours of wear.
The formula is supposed to be a “highly pigmented cream eyeshadow” that is “long-wearing” with a “soft, silky texture” that will dry “quickly without creasing” but is still “easily blendable.” I bought five shades (there are 11 in the range) and had good luck with three of them and found two to be more troublesome to use. It seemed like the more pearly shades were easier to use than the ones with larger sparkles. I wasn’t sure if the squeeze tube format was going to work, but it was fairly easy to dispense product without getting too much at once but product can get dried out and clog the opening.
The texture was smooth, creamy, and emollient enough to spread easily across the lid. They dried down quickly but I did not feel too rushed (I would still work one eye at a time, though). I noticed that they felt a bit heavier on the lids and had a tendency to cling and emphasize any texture on my lids (most noticeable on the inner portion of my lids). They lasted between nine and eleven hours on me with one of the more glittery shades crumbling over time. I applied mine using a flat, synthetic brush (like MAC 242) as well as fingertips, though I personally prefer brushes so that is what I reached for most of the time.
Bite Beauty Cava Multistick ($24.00 for 0.17 oz.) is a light-medium, pinky mauve with neutral-to-warm undertones and a matte finish. It had a smooth, creamy, and velvety feel that glided across the lips and skin easily. As a cheek color, whether dabbed on or used with a brush to apply, it had buildable coverage from medium to opaque. If swiped directly from the tube, it had more opaque coverage. It felt lightweight as a cream blush, which lasted for almost ten hours on me, and as a lip product, it had a more powdery, thicker feel on the lips but was non-drying and stayed on for five hours. When I wore it as a cream eyeshadow, it had faint creasing within an hour and a half of wear.
It’s a new shade addition to the Multistick range, which I’ve reviewed extensively in the past (see this extensive overview). It is a cream formula that can be worn on eyes, lips, and face, and it is supposed to be “blendable, breathable, and buildable” with a “soft focus finish. The consistency is medium in thickness–more noticeably thick when used on the lips, as it is quite dense–and is quite blendable across the majority of shades. I really liked the formula as a cream blush, as it was blendable, buildable, and long-wearing. As a lip product, it was decent to good (the performance depended largely on the shade), and as an eye product, it was a total miss for me due to poor wear.
Giorgio Armani Spring-Summer ’17 Eye Tint ($42.00 for 0.22 fl. oz.) is a bright, medium-dark blue with cool undertones and fine, lighter and darker blue pearl. It had medium coverage, which was buildable to semi-opaque pigmentation with two layers but a third layer did not go as well, as it seemed to cause the whole thing to appear uneven, thicker, and made it the product more prone to flaking off.
The Eye Tint formula is supposed to have “16 hour wear” in a “buildable liquid eyeshadow” format. (The “buildable” part is new to me compared to the description I have from 2015–Sephora still shows the description I remember from before.) With just one or two layers, it lasted for 14 hours before creasing slightly. The consistency was thin, watery initially, but it dried down and felt more like a powder product that was still a bit blendable along the edges.
Chanel Terre Brulee (806) Ombre Premiere Longwear Cream Eyeshadow ($36.00 for 0.14 oz.) is a rich, medium-dark coppery brown with warm, yellow undertones and a golden shimmer with a subtle touch of gold sparkle. It had good pigmentation in a single layer, which was buildable to opaque coverage with just a touch more product patted on top, while it was also blendable to semi-sheer coverage if desired. The texture was smooth, thin, creamy without being too slippery, and seemed to take a bit longer to dry down than other shades in the line-up. The latter made it easier to diffuse and blend out some of the edges. Once applied, it lasted for 14 hours without any changes.
Chanel describes the formula as a “smooth-textured cream shadow [that] glides on effortlessly” and is “long-wearing.” There are eight shades (view swatches) released with one (Obscur) being limited edition. Overall, the consistency has moderate slip–emollient but not greasy or overly wet in feel–and feels more like a traditional cream eyeshadow than Chanel’s Illusion d’Ombres. They go on as a thin layer but have fairly good pigmentation. The formula dried down quite quickly leaving little time for blending or diffusing edges, even when working one eye at a time, which was where I struggled. I think some of them tended to work better as lid colors and using something else for a more diffused/blended out crease color. They did, however, wear impeccably for as long as fourteen hours on me–no creasing, fading, or flaking.
Chanel describes the formula as a “smooth-textured cream shadow [that] glides on effortlessly” and is “long-wearing.” Overall, the consistency has moderate slip–emollient but not greasy or overly wet in feel–and feels more like a traditional cream eyeshadow than Chanel’s Illusion d’Ombres. They go on as a thin layer but have fairly good pigmentation. The formula dried down quite quickly leaving little time for blending or diffusing edges, even when working one eye at a time, which was where I struggled. I think some of them tended to work better as lid colors and using something else for a more diffused/blended out crease color. They did, however, wear impeccably for as long as fourteen hours on me–no creasing, fading, or flaking.
