Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow ($28.50 for 0.05 oz.) is described as “sheer gold.” It’s a pale yellow gold with a soft, frosted metallic sheen. theBalm Snobby is similar but a smidgen yellower. Bare Escentuals Aspire is more orange. theBalm Wild Child is lighter. Urban Decay Eldorado is a hair yellower. Buxom Poodle is lighter. Giorgio Armani #1 Madreperla is a bit more orange-toned. Giorgio Armani #18 is similar but a bit paler.
Gah! Chanel! Of all the shades you label as “sheer,” this one? It’s not sheer! What kind of madness are you trying to create? Furtif was sheer. This is pigmented! Opaque! Rich in color! It might be a soft shade, but there’s not much underlying sheerness. The texture is silky-smooth, ultra-finely milled, so you could certainly sheer it out, but it packs a a fair dosage of color without having to pack it on. On the lid, it’s pretty pigmented; not totally opaque, but it’s close. It blends out easily, because it’s so soft, resulting in a smidgen of powderiness.
When I wore it, there was very light fading after eight hours along the lash line and outer edge, but it was mostly intact and there was no creasing to be seen. It has the same look, feel, and resulting shimmer/sparkle of Complice, which was a beautiful color for all over the lid. If Chanel hadn’t used the word “sheer” to describe this, it’d be just as good. It’s a little too pigmented to be sheer–you shouldn’t have to barely touch the pan of color to get sheer color!
Eclaire
PPermanent. $29.50.
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire on inner lid, Burberry Midnight Brown on outer lid (no mascara!) (Initial)
Chanel Eclaire on inner lid, Burberry Midnight Brown on outer lid (no mascara!) (8 hours of wear)
The word sheer has various meanings. Just like Nars Sheer Glow doesn’t refer to the foundation’s coverage being ‘sheer’, it just may have a similar meaning here. Nars uses the word ‘sheer’ in Sheer Glow to mean ‘pure’, ‘absolute’, ‘utter’ glow etc. So it’s worth noting that perhaps Chanel’s intention with using the word ‘sheer’ was not to indicate how opaque the eyeshadow is but rather to describe the colour as being a ‘pure’ ‘absolute’ gold.
Sheer Glow is described as sheer but buildable coverage, though 🙂 I get what you mean, when you’re saying sheer can mean absolute. I wouldn’t buy it in this case myself, though but that’s just my opinion 🙂
@Christine (Temptalia) “Absolute gold”. Weird!
@Christine (Temptalia) If they meant it as in “that movie was sheer gold!”, I’d laugh. But it wouldn’t sound very Chanel!
@Christine (Temptalia) How odd. I don’t find Nars Sheer Glow ‘sheer’ in terms of coverage at all. I prefer sheer foundations and that’s why the whole conversation with a NARS MUA happened (on two separate occasions) and both times I was told that they don’t use ‘sheer’ in this instance to describe coverage but rather as ‘pure glow’ to describe its finish.
Regardless, I totally interpreted Chanel’s use of the word ‘sheer’ to mean a ‘pure gold’ when I first read it so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I definitely checked both NARS and Sephora’s websites for the description before replying to you, and it was used in reference to coverage and then the foundation being buildable. So sorry!
I’ve been told the same thing numerous times with regard to NARS’ Sheer Glow (which I love). That said, I *personally* never think of “sheer” as “absolute” or “total” in the context of makeup, especially not eyeshadows where, one can argue, it is more common to define texture in terms of “opaqueness” vs. “sheerness” than it is for foundation. I find NARS’ interpretation and title for their foundation to be quite unusual and it’s misled a lot of people that I know. But, regardless, those are my personal definitional interpretations and we all have different ones. 🙂
@Kafka Adding in here – Burberry calls their foundation “Sheer Foundation”, and I always thought it meant light coverage, not “Pure Foundation”. I have the powder foundation and it’s light coverage – I wouldn’t necessarily call it *sheer*, but it is light 🙂
Yes, that’s what I thought. I think they mean sheer as in “sheer pleasure”. they are a luxury brand so I suppose they want to name products to evoke experiences and not so much to accurately describe the performance of it.
I like the eye shots you have been providing lately
This one is actually quite pretty–I like it more than the other shades from the Fall collection. But I still wouldnt buy it–too easily dupeable
@Becca @The Beauty Sample I’m with you 100%, and since I’ve never been impressed by Chanel’s formula (for anything I’ve tried), it just doesn’t qualify for the pricepoint.
Looks very pretty but not unique enough that I feel I need it
This is gorgeous. I’ll be hunting for dupes that are a little more affordable, though. Sorry Chanel!
I actually really like this, although I’m loving the Burberry midnight brown in those pics more. I think I like Complice the most out of the fall shades, but I like this a lot, i don’t think it’s too warm for me. I probably won’t get it, though 🙂
I bought this eyeshadow as soon as the collection hit my local counter about three weeks ago, it is the most amazing eyeshadow ever. I am considering buying a back-up. The way it sparkles seriously takes my breath away. It is a great inner corner highlight and all over lid color, it instantly brightens!
Sorry if you’ve already said this, but is it limited edition?
It isn’t!
I do not care if its sheer or not I just love this colour and the smooth way it applies for me a must have!