NARS Little Princess, Sexual Healing, Chelsea Girls Lipsticks Reviews & Swatches
Little Princess
NARS Little Princess Lipstick ($26.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a pale, peachy pink with a sparkling finish. It had semi-sheer pigmentation, but the color applied unevenly, clumped up on itself, and sank heavily into every lip line I had (and some I didn’t know I had!). The consistency was lightweight, thin without feeling clingy, and comfortable to apply and to wear, but the product just looked so poor on. This shade stayed on for two and a half hours and felt lightly hydrating while worn.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Sephora Sink or Swim (67) (P, $8.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Gubby (DC, $18.00) is more shimmery, less glossy (90% similar).
- Too Faced Angel Tears (LE, $22.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- MAC Love's a Gamble (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Revlon Silver City Pink (P, $8.49) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- MAC Tease Maker (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- MAC Pet Me Please (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery, brighter (85% similar).
- Sephora Pink Lollipop (109) (P, $14.00) is more shimmery, more muted, warmer (85% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Pink-kiki (568) (LE, $29.00) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Carine (LE, $36.00) is more shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$26.00/0.12 oz. - $216.67 Per Ounce
NARS has reformulated their core lipstick range, which now includes 72 shades across three finishes: matte, sheer, and satin. The formula is supposed to go on "smoothly and evenly with a light feel" that is "long-lasting" and "resistant to bleeding and feathering." The sheer finish has "subtle, sheer color that shines," while the satin finish has "creamy rich color" and the matte finish has "intense color with a velvety finish."
The matte finish has a very thin, featherweight feel to it, but they didn't feel clingy or too prone to dragging during application, though they were definitely a firmer texture in the tube. There was enough glide from the inclusion of dimethicone (first ingredient for the matte finish) that went on evenly, felt velvety but didn't feel as powder-like as some of the other more silicone-heavy matte lipstick formulas that have been released in the last couple of years. Most shades were pigmented and nearly opaque to opaque. The wear ranged from three to six hours with deeper, richer shades staying on a bit longer and leaving slight stains. They were comfortable to wear but felt more non-drying than particularly hydrating.
The satin finish has more slip, feels thicker (though not actually thick or heavy) compared to the matte finish, and of course, there was subtle to light shine/sheen. They applied smoothly, comfortably, and for the most part, went on evenly and didn't sink noticeably into my lip lines but there was some variance between shades. They were typically semi-opaque to opaque in coverage with four to six-hour wear that was lightly hydrating.
The sheer finish had coverage that ranged from semi-sheer to true medium coverage but most had some translucency to them, which gave them a sheerer finish. I found most of the shades I tried were buildable to some degree. The texture was a bit firmer, but they felt more emollient and "melted" a bit more against my lips than I recall the original line of lipsticks doing. Some shades applied well with even application and were flattering on, but there were a few that sank more noticeably into my lip lines. This finish tended to wear between three and five hours.
I don't have many of NARS' original lipsticks in my stash (I have mostly Audacious as they haven't been releasing many in the core range) to compare to. The matte finish was definitely thinner, more matte, and had a velvetier look on lips compared to the original which had a subtle sheen to it. The satin finish seemed a bit more pigmented and not quite as luminous/glossy as the previous formula, while the sheer finish was creamier, more emollient, and was easier to apply. It didn't feel like a vastly different formula, but it felt a bit easier to work with (smoother, more emollient but still lighterweight and thin, far less slip than any of the Audacious range) and was more comfortable to wear across the board for me.
I didn't notice any scent or taste, though there is "fragrance (parfum)" listed in the ingredients--it smelled neutral, not waxy but I just didn't get any scent.
Browse all of our NARS Lipstick swatches.
Ingredients
Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2, Bis-Behenyl/Isostearyl/Phytosteryl Dimer Dilinoleyl Dimer Dilinoleate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Polyethylene, Triisostearin, Diisostearyl Malate, Microcrystalline Wax/Cera Microcristallina/Cire Microcristalline, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate, Moringa Oleifera Seed Oil, Passiflora Edulis Seed Oil, Sodium Hyaluronate, Tocopherol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Diethylhexyl Syringylidenemalonate, Aminobutyric Acid, Aluminum Hydroxide ·Fragrance (Parfum), Silica Dimethyl Silylate, Butylene Glycol, Hexylene Glycol, Limonene, Linalool, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, [+/- ( May Contain): Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Blue 1 Lake (Ci 42090), Iron Oxides (Ci 77491), Red 6 (Ci 15850), Red 7 Lake (Ci 15850)].
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Little Princess
PPermanent. $26.00.
Sexual Healing
NARS Sexual Healing Lipstick ($26.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a light-medium pink with strong, warm undertones and fine, multi-colored pearl (mostly pink and gold) with a natural sheen. It had semi-sheer color coverage that was buildable to medium coverage–it actually seemed to be very “my-lips-but-better” (it looks more pigmented on my actual lips than I think it genuinely is). The texture was lightweight, emollient without being too slippery, and comfortable to wear with a great even application. It lasted for three hours on me and felt moisturizing over time.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Whitney (LE, $36.00) is more muted, cooler (90% similar).
- Bite Beauty Rose Glace (P, $24.00) is less glossy (90% similar).
- MAC Sunset Rose (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- Lancome Coquette (326) (P, $32.00) is darker, cooler, less glossy (85% similar).
- NARS Summer Fire (LE, $28.00) is less shimmery, less glossy (85% similar).
- Pat McGrath Naked Kiss (P, $40.00) is less shimmery, darker, more pigmented (85% similar).
- Revlon Demure (P, $8.49) is less shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Skew (P, $19.00) is less shimmery, cooler (85% similar).
- Pat McGrath Nude Romantique (P, $40.00) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- YSL Nu Fatal (85) (P, $38.00) is less shimmery, darker, less glossy (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$26.00/0.12 oz. - $216.67 Per Ounce
NARS has reformulated their core lipstick range, which now includes 72 shades across three finishes: matte, sheer, and satin. The formula is supposed to go on "smoothly and evenly with a light feel" that is "long-lasting" and "resistant to bleeding and feathering." The sheer finish has "subtle, sheer color that shines," while the satin finish has "creamy rich color" and the matte finish has "intense color with a velvety finish."
The matte finish has a very thin, featherweight feel to it, but they didn't feel clingy or too prone to dragging during application, though they were definitely a firmer texture in the tube. There was enough glide from the inclusion of dimethicone (first ingredient for the matte finish) that went on evenly, felt velvety but didn't feel as powder-like as some of the other more silicone-heavy matte lipstick formulas that have been released in the last couple of years. Most shades were pigmented and nearly opaque to opaque. The wear ranged from three to six hours with deeper, richer shades staying on a bit longer and leaving slight stains. They were comfortable to wear but felt more non-drying than particularly hydrating.
The satin finish has more slip, feels thicker (though not actually thick or heavy) compared to the matte finish, and of course, there was subtle to light shine/sheen. They applied smoothly, comfortably, and for the most part, went on evenly and didn't sink noticeably into my lip lines but there was some variance between shades. They were typically semi-opaque to opaque in coverage with four to six-hour wear that was lightly hydrating.
The sheer finish had coverage that ranged from semi-sheer to true medium coverage but most had some translucency to them, which gave them a sheerer finish. I found most of the shades I tried were buildable to some degree. The texture was a bit firmer, but they felt more emollient and "melted" a bit more against my lips than I recall the original line of lipsticks doing. Some shades applied well with even application and were flattering on, but there were a few that sank more noticeably into my lip lines. This finish tended to wear between three and five hours.
I don't have many of NARS' original lipsticks in my stash (I have mostly Audacious as they haven't been releasing many in the core range) to compare to. The matte finish was definitely thinner, more matte, and had a velvetier look on lips compared to the original which had a subtle sheen to it. The satin finish seemed a bit more pigmented and not quite as luminous/glossy as the previous formula, while the sheer finish was creamier, more emollient, and was easier to apply. It didn't feel like a vastly different formula, but it felt a bit easier to work with (smoother, more emollient but still lighterweight and thin, far less slip than any of the Audacious range) and was more comfortable to wear across the board for me.
I didn't notice any scent or taste, though there is "fragrance (parfum)" listed in the ingredients--it smelled neutral, not waxy but I just didn't get any scent.
Browse all of our NARS Lipstick swatches.
Ingredients
Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2, Bis-Behenyl/Isostearyl/Phytosteryl Dimer Dilinoleyl Dimer Dilinoleate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Polyethylene, Triisostearin, Diisostearyl Malate, Microcrystalline Wax/Cera Microcristallina/Cire Microcristalline, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate, Moringa Oleifera Seed Oil, Passiflora Edulis Seed Oil, Sodium Hyaluronate, Tocopherol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Diethylhexyl Syringylidenemalonate, Aminobutyric Acid, Aluminum Hydroxide ·Fragrance (Parfum), Silica Dimethyl Silylate, Butylene Glycol, Hexylene Glycol, Limonene, Linalool, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, [+/- ( May Contain): Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Blue 1 Lake (Ci 42090), Iron Oxides (Ci 77491), Red 6 (Ci 15850), Red 7 Lake (Ci 15850)].
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Sexual Healing
PPermanent. $26.00.
Chelsea Girls
NARS Chelsea Girls Lipstick ($26.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a muted, light-medium pink-coral with a natural sheen. It had semi-sheer coverage, which was in line with expectations based on the finish classification, that applied evenly across my lips. There was a faint amount of product that sank into my deeper lip lines but wasn’t noticeable from a normal viewing distance. While the consistency felt lightly emollient and had some shine, it required freshly-exfoliated lips or else it caught on texture. It wore well for three hours and was lightly hydrating over time.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- YSL Rosewood Beat (161) (P, $38.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- UOMA Beauty Peaches and Akeem (LE, $24.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- NARS License to Love (P, $26.00) is more shimmery, lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- YSL Burnt Suede (130) (P, $38.00) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Makeup by Mario Blush Glow (P, $22.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- YSL Corail Intuitive (15) (P, $38.00) is more shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
- Burberry Clementine (261) (P, $34.00) is more shimmery, darker, warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop Mr. Mint (LE, $9.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Scorching (LE, $55.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Clinique Heavenly (08) (P, $19.50) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$26.00/0.12 oz. - $216.67 Per Ounce
NARS has reformulated their core lipstick range, which now includes 72 shades across three finishes: matte, sheer, and satin. The formula is supposed to go on "smoothly and evenly with a light feel" that is "long-lasting" and "resistant to bleeding and feathering." The sheer finish has "subtle, sheer color that shines," while the satin finish has "creamy rich color" and the matte finish has "intense color with a velvety finish."
The matte finish has a very thin, featherweight feel to it, but they didn't feel clingy or too prone to dragging during application, though they were definitely a firmer texture in the tube. There was enough glide from the inclusion of dimethicone (first ingredient for the matte finish) that went on evenly, felt velvety but didn't feel as powder-like as some of the other more silicone-heavy matte lipstick formulas that have been released in the last couple of years. Most shades were pigmented and nearly opaque to opaque. The wear ranged from three to six hours with deeper, richer shades staying on a bit longer and leaving slight stains. They were comfortable to wear but felt more non-drying than particularly hydrating.
The satin finish has more slip, feels thicker (though not actually thick or heavy) compared to the matte finish, and of course, there was subtle to light shine/sheen. They applied smoothly, comfortably, and for the most part, went on evenly and didn't sink noticeably into my lip lines but there was some variance between shades. They were typically semi-opaque to opaque in coverage with four to six-hour wear that was lightly hydrating.
The sheer finish had coverage that ranged from semi-sheer to true medium coverage but most had some translucency to them, which gave them a sheerer finish. I found most of the shades I tried were buildable to some degree. The texture was a bit firmer, but they felt more emollient and "melted" a bit more against my lips than I recall the original line of lipsticks doing. Some shades applied well with even application and were flattering on, but there were a few that sank more noticeably into my lip lines. This finish tended to wear between three and five hours.
I don't have many of NARS' original lipsticks in my stash (I have mostly Audacious as they haven't been releasing many in the core range) to compare to. The matte finish was definitely thinner, more matte, and had a velvetier look on lips compared to the original which had a subtle sheen to it. The satin finish seemed a bit more pigmented and not quite as luminous/glossy as the previous formula, while the sheer finish was creamier, more emollient, and was easier to apply. It didn't feel like a vastly different formula, but it felt a bit easier to work with (smoother, more emollient but still lighterweight and thin, far less slip than any of the Audacious range) and was more comfortable to wear across the board for me.
I didn't notice any scent or taste, though there is "fragrance (parfum)" listed in the ingredients--it smelled neutral, not waxy but I just didn't get any scent.
Browse all of our NARS Lipstick swatches.
Ingredients
Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2, Bis-Behenyl/Isostearyl/Phytosteryl Dimer Dilinoleyl Dimer Dilinoleate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Polyethylene, Triisostearin, Diisostearyl Malate, Microcrystalline Wax/Cera Microcristallina/Cire Microcristalline, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate, Moringa Oleifera Seed Oil, Passiflora Edulis Seed Oil, Sodium Hyaluronate, Tocopherol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Diethylhexyl Syringylidenemalonate, Aminobutyric Acid, Aluminum Hydroxide ·Fragrance (Parfum), Silica Dimethyl Silylate, Butylene Glycol, Hexylene Glycol, Limonene, Linalool, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, [+/- ( May Contain): Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891), Blue 1 Lake (Ci 42090), Iron Oxides (Ci 77491), Red 6 (Ci 15850), Red 7 Lake (Ci 15850)].
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
I ordered Sexual Healing because I was mesmerized by your swatches. I hope it doesn’t look too frosty on me! Sometimes pale colors on my pale skin can look really pasty.
I think the shimmer is pretty fine and with the shine, it shouldn’t look frosted – but fingers crossed!
Sexual Healing is a splendid MLBB shade! What a shame that Francois Nars named it after the song that got Marvin Gaye murdered by his own father, though. True crime fact. I might still buy it, but I find that naming process disturbing.
Haha, as soon as I saw Little Princess, I thought, “hey that looks like Sephora Sink or Swim!” Which I’m wearing as I type. <3
Nice to see Sexual Healing get a good grade, thought it looked beautiful in the preview swatches.
Now I’m wishing Ulta would’ve used this shade as their birthday GWP for this month lol
Sexual Healing is such a pretty shade. It is one of those shades that could look amazing on my skin tone or just completely off. This is one I will have to see in person to make a decision. I don’t think I have anything like it in my collection which is hard to say when you have as many lipstick’s as I have.
chelsea girls is a nice low-key color and it looks almost glassy to me at least on my computer screen ! the name is great too
Christine, I compared Sexual Healing with UD Rebel in the swatch gallery and they look similar on my computer. Having seen them both in person, would you say they could be dupes? Or how similar might they be percentage wise? Thanks.
Rebel is more pigmented, darker, and cooler-toned. Like 60% similar – I wouldn’t call the dupes!
Thanks Christine. Still on the lookout for a dupe then. I wish UD would just breakdown and bring it back for good, lol.
Sexual Healing is beautiful. But I already have MAC Sunset Rose, PMG Nude Romantique and MAC Skew.
I have just checked my Clinique Bare Pop and on my fair-light skin and not so pigmented lips, it is almost identical to MAC Sunset Rose, just a bit on the lighter, rosier side.
Sexual Healing is a gorgeous lipstick, not that I’m buying it, I really dislike the name, I just felt bad vibes, and reading what Nancy T wrote I understood why I disliked it. I’m not one to back off because of a a name of any kind so my reaction felt strange to me.
I still love the lipstick itself though.
Sexual Healing is a perfect MLBB shade. I love the shimmer.
Christine, is Chelsea Girls similar in shade to the lip lacquer of the same name from years gone by?
Sorry, I don’t have that!