Chanel Aurora & Fraicheur Rouge Coco Glosses Reviews & Swatches
Aurora (822)
Chanel Aurora (822) Rouge Coco Gloss ($30.00 for 0.19 oz.) is a translucent, pink-coral base with random bits of micro-sparkle. There were barely enough sparkles to warrant calling it a sparkly gloss, but for anyone who would rather go without than wear a single sparkle, you’ve been warned! The texture was smooth, like a creamy gel, and comfortable to wear with a non-sticky feel. It had semi-sheer coverage, which looked more like it darkened and enhanced my natural lip color (including emphasizing the natural unevenness in my lip color!) with light sparkle and high-shine.
I can’t emphasize enough that this coverage level in a gloss will make it appear wildly different based on your natural lip color. It wore well for two and a half hours and was hydrating over time. Chanel’s promotional swatches look quite different, both in general color (pinker and more shimmery) but also coverage (seemed more medium to semi-opaque).
P.S. My box actually lists it as 822, whereas the website lists it as 212 (with the correct name), and I purchased mine through Chanel directly.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Bobbi Brown In the Buff (P, $27.00) is less shimmery, warmer (90% similar).
- Hourglass Adorn (P, $49.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Chanel Poppea (794) (LE, $30.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
- Sephora Sundress (34) (P, $12.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- ColourPop Easy Bake (P, $10.00) is more shimmery, lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- MAC Love Your Body (LE, $24.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- ColourPop Berry Good (P, $10.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Sunrise Pink (P, $57.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
- NARS Huahine (LE, $26.00) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- ColourPop Blowzy (LE, $10.00) is more shimmery, darker, more pigmented (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$30.00/0.19 oz. - $157.89 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have “intense shine, hydration” with a “gel-like texture” with shades that vary from “sheer to opaque” in coverage. The consistency has a smooth, lightweight texture that can feel more like a gel-like texture with some of the sheerer shades and more like a cream and gel hybrid with more opaque shades. It’s a formula that’s comfortable to wear with light tackiness that lasts anywhere from two to four hours and is hydrating over time.
There was a strong, mirror-like shine across the shades that was very reminiscent of the prior Glossimer formula. There was a faint floral scent, and with some shades, I got a subtle taste of perfume. The doe foot applicator was more unique (at least, to me) with a very curved edge that was great for my bottom lip while flipping it gave me a more paddle-shaped edge that worked better for my top lip.
I would love to see Chanel introduce color descriptions on their retail website, especially for a formula like this where there can be such a huge difference in pigmentation (and finish) from one shade to the next that isn’t obvious from a product photo.
Browse all of our Chanel Rouge Coco Gloss swatches.
Ingredients
Aurora (822)
PPermanent. $30.00.
Fraicheur (818)
Chanel Fraicheur (818) Rouge Coco Gloss ($30.00 for 0.19 oz.) is a translucent aqua base (really, mostly clear) with flecks of gold micro-sparkle. It had sheer coverage with a dusting of sparkle, so it had more of a glossy, high-shine effect and made my lips appear plumper (with less visible lines) and feel comfortable. The texture had the non-sticky, smooth, and gel-cream feel of the formula, and it was nicely hydrating over the two hours it lasted for.
The translucent nature of the gloss seems obviously intended (and the Rouge Coco Gloss formula varies), but I implore brands to take 30 seconds and write out descriptions or organize their ranges by opacity. It would be fantastic to see Rouge Coco Glosses organized by finish, perhaps sheer, sheer shimmer, cream, and opaque shimmer. They do have some promotional swatches, which definitely showed this particular shade to be on the sheerer side but seemed to be more shimmery.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Icicle Pop (LE, $8.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- MAC Dua Lipa (LE, $20.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- ColourPop Italian Ice (LE, $8.00) is more shimmery, warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop Kumquat (LE, $10.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- Surratt Beauty Faux Pas (P, $32.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- MAC #1 Wish (LE, $24.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- ColourPop Atta Girl (P, $10.00) is more shimmery, cooler (85% similar).
- Surratt Beauty Oh La La (P, $32.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- ColourPop Bibbidi (LE, $10.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- MAC Ice Follies (LE, $24.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$30.00/0.19 oz. - $157.89 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have “intense shine, hydration” with a “gel-like texture” with shades that vary from “sheer to opaque” in coverage. The consistency has a smooth, lightweight texture that can feel more like a gel-like texture with some of the sheerer shades and more like a cream and gel hybrid with more opaque shades. It’s a formula that’s comfortable to wear with light tackiness that lasts anywhere from two to four hours and is hydrating over time.
There was a strong, mirror-like shine across the shades that was very reminiscent of the prior Glossimer formula. There was a faint floral scent, and with some shades, I got a subtle taste of perfume. The doe foot applicator was more unique (at least, to me) with a very curved edge that was great for my bottom lip while flipping it gave me a more paddle-shaped edge that worked better for my top lip.
I would love to see Chanel introduce color descriptions on their retail website, especially for a formula like this where there can be such a huge difference in pigmentation (and finish) from one shade to the next that isn’t obvious from a product photo.
Browse all of our Chanel Rouge Coco Gloss swatches.
Ingredients
It almost seems as though they had a different color lined up to be Aurora and had to replace it at the last second; but speculation is the ugly cousin of assumption, so who knows!
Like you mentioned Chanel’s gloss formula is fairly erratic in regards to opacity, finish, and wear, and they don’t make a lot of effort to clarify their insufficient descriptions. It was my go-to gloss a few years ago but one day I noticed I had six of them and they all looked generally the same once applied, and I’d purchased each one expecting it to be its own unique color and/or effect. And I always had to drive an hour away to see them in person before I could buy any because their website had fooled me before (purchased a sheer violet gloss that was actually just a clear gel). I get that part of the aesthetic of a luxe brand (especially Chanel) is they tend to keep an air of indifference toward the opinion of the general public, but at this point it just seems lazy to not include specific details or realistic photographs and swatches. I’ve actually stopped shopping Chanel because I feel they genuinely don’t care about their customers or consider inclusivity, and a cursory look at their website just re-verifies my opinion. If you aren’t a certain skintone who’s a Chanel ‘Stan’ then you don’t fit into their business model. Which is fine, I’ll just spend my cash elsewhere and let my wallet do the talking for me; money is their native language anyway.
If I recall, sometimes the press release included actual descriptions, but I’ve been hard pressed to get my hands on actual press releases these days… which is only useful to ME to convey information to readers but not useful information should be conveyed to BUYERS!!! at the point of purchase! They have started to add swatches, though – they have both of these shown on models (two lighter and one deeper in skin tone), but you have to scroll a bit down the page to find ’em.
I will say that I feel the opposite re: Chanel valuing customer business, at least their beauty ecomm site, because it is the only retailer/brand that routinely sends random gifts for being a regular customer (that I’ve experienced) – as in full-sized bottles of perfume ($100+ value) out of the blue, and they send a holiday gift each year. Their customer service is excellent, and they have some of the best shipping/presentation I’ve seen as well (cardboard box that’s sturdy, pretty if you like Chanel’s aesthetic, and very practical/resuable) and everything is well-wrapped with paper shreddings (better than plastic) and often have drawstring bags (some might reuse them, these I don’t reuse myself) to secure the products.
I’d be super chuffed if companies would start being a lot more clear about how sheer (or opaque) their lip glosses are (and put out realistic swatches/worn images); I’ll actually buy and wear lip glosses despite my hatred of glossiness, as long as I’m clear that the gloss can be blotted down to take away the glossiness and still affect the appearance of my lips. Blotting these would just leave random sparkles on my lips. :-/
Would be so great if companies did this in general… for all products… 🙁
So often, I feel like companies DO deliberately release a sheerer/more pigmented shade within a range that isn’t typically that way. Like it’s okay if you put in a sparkly, top coat/layering kind of eyeshadow… just set my expectations!!!
Right!?! Definitely applies to all products, but to take the lip gloss example even further, I think companies should have both sheerer and pigmented glosses (I’ll grant that people who like glossiness and really want to be able to apply a gloss without a mirror are almost certainly looking for a sheer product — *I”M* the outlier), but it’d be less confusing if they were two different lines; if they wanted to make it all the same line, then fine, but BE CLEAR which ones are pigmented and which ones aren’t. There’s room (and need) in this world for both.
Sometimes it’s like the companies are being coy about it — trying to hide that products are sheer or work in different ways than some of their other products; that’s so self-defeating! As you say, set the expectations, otherwise people will go into a purchase expecting a particular type of product but getting something very different; the product may actually be great for what it is, but disappointed people are pretty ruthless on social media — why set yourself up for a marketing disaster? If a company is afraid that a product is too “different” or outside that box in application and end result, how much worse is it if they don’t let people know up front that this is the case? Ugh. Okay, done … off the soapbox.
AGREED! I love when brands assign finishes (and take the time to DESCRIBE!! the finish somewhere handy) since I feel like that can “group” together everything (say eyeshadows) while making it clear that certain finishes will have different effects. I don’t know if many brands bother to do this these days, though. If there are enough, I definitely agree that a separate line is a good move, too.
I honestly feel that many companies are afraid to use the word sheer in descriptions, and I’m not sure why. With gloss and blush, the feeling I get from most is medium coverage tends to be more ideal or medium and buildable, and of course, there are people who like super sheer and crazy pigmented, too.
Ahh, that may be the difference in our experience. While I regularly shopped Chanel’s website I don’t know if I ever spent more than a grand there in one year. The most they sent me was a magazine that was more of a 30-page advertisement than anything else. And although I enjoyed their shipping presentation (I still have a holiday box I use to store birthday cards and the like) the good-will was eventually negated by how often I had to return things. During my “Chanel era” I mostly shopped for lip and face products, and the swatches they supplied for most of those items just weren’t lifelike; they were heavily edited and didn’t really capture the product’s appearance or performance. After so many returns I just stopped shopping their website and haven’t returned. Even recently, I wanted to try their newer foundation (the one with the pigments suspended in a clear base), but their swatches are so edited that I don’t trust them; and there’s no going by the look of what’s in the bottle because we all know it’s not always the same. To their credit, they’re still the only swatches I’ve come across through any retailer for that specific foundation (and I looked everywhere I could find short of actually driving to my nearest Chanel counter), but I’d rather have no swatch at all than trust one which has been obviously altered to be “perfect”. I’m stubborn that way lol.
Your website is proof that it’s possible to produce product pictures and swatches which are professional, beautiful, AND representative of the product. Maybe they should just hire y’all to handle their pictures!
Makes sense — it is interesting to hear different experiences! I think I am around $2-3K at Chanel in a year, not particularly high as far as a Chanel customer could be (I purchase no other Chanel goods) if they look beyond beauty purchases.
It’s rare to find a brand that produces “trustworthy” swatches–the kind that seem like they are accurate and edited for color but not for presentation but YMMV because lighting and devices–unfortunately. I remember when brands first started sharing swatches, I was like, “oooh, the end of bloggers!” but then they ramped up editing so much that it was like, nevermind! Have you seen MAC’s swatches? While I don’t know about color accuracy, they are, at least, not heavily edited to show better presentation/performance – always impressed by all the product settling into lip lines, LOL.
I’ve been very into green lip glosses recently. The remarkable thing about that sentence is that it says I’ve been into lip glosses recently. 🙂 In all seriousness, I now have 2 (3? maybe?) green lip glosses that are pigmented enough to blot the glossiness away and still affect a color change to my lips. I like the exceptionally greyed (mauve) look my lips get with a tint of green. Fraicheur doesn’t look like it changes the color of your lips at all, so not the same thing; just thought I’d share how tickled I am to see green.
Kinda expensive for what they are and how they rate. What product do you feel like is a home run from Chanel? I’ve never tried any of their stuff…
I love some of their glosses (the formula is really comfortable and smoothing overall), lipsticks generally, blushes, highlighters, and some of their eyeshadow quads. Like all brands, most ranges have some hits and some misses.
They’re ‘okay’, I suppose. However, they are just too sheer and nondescript for my personal taste. The one plus in their favor is the comfort level and lip smoothing effect. I’d have been all over Aurora had it been either more strongly pigmented or more shimmery!
Of course, I clicked on Fraicheur to see the swatches.. ?.
I had a strong feeling it was gonna be that super sheer Chanel gloss that they like to bring out in the summer… but man, if it had been nearly opaque??? It’s so pretty in the tube 🙁
These are definitely not my cup of tea and I think the green shade is a bit misleading as it doesn’t look that green at all.
Fraicheur looked so intriguing in the tube. I’m not surprised that it’s just a clear gloss, though. If it were evan a semi-opaque aqua like that, I’d be tempted to buy it.
Christine, did you get your lip freckle lightened or something? I seem to recall it used to be much more noticeable on these posts with sheer lip colors.
No. To be clear: I have not had anything done to my lips – no fillers, no lightening, no brightening, no shaping, nothing. I exfoliate my lips, treat with lip balm or an intense lip hydration/balm treatment/mask as needed (Jack Black Lip Balm vs. Bite Agave Lip Mask). Freckles can fade as you get older! I didn’t even know I had one until I started posting lip pictures on the internet, so I don’t recall what it looked like beyond what’s been posted on the blog over time.
Skin is weird! Either that, or, more likely, my eyes are getting old…
P.s. sorry if that was weird to ask, I just had memories that I used to gauge opacity of lip products off how much of the freckle was visible lol
If you go through my photos, you’ll see that it has changed shape/size/color over a 13-year period. I don’t pay much attention to it myself, since it’s not getting bigger or jagged (changes where you’d get it checked out). I saw gloss photos from 2015 that were pretty similar to what I see now, just a little larger. It’s also possible that this is closer to its “natural” color as I spend the majority of my time inside and always wear a hat if I’m outdoors for prolonged periods of time – like in college, there was a lot of walking around campus, outdoor malls, etc. and early during graduate school, we’d play tennis outside (freckles tend to darken in summer, fade a bit during winter). I’m NC20ish these days and used to wear NC30/NC35 in the summer.
Crazy to think it’s been thirteen years of you blogging! I still consider your blog the “gold standard;” here’s to as many more years as you wish to continue 🙂
Thank you!
I want to apologize if my curtness came off as hostile, as I do know that most, like yourself, have good intentions and are likely not trying to make me feel badly about how I look. It has become exhausting to defend, explain, and otherwise have to address how I look, how my appearance has changed, etc. on a regular basis as it feeds into being hypercritical of how I look and wondering when I’ll reach a point where my face won’t be acceptable. I’ve always said that if I do any enhancements/modifications (like filler) that I would disclose it, and I remain committed to that transparency.