Review: MAC Pink Tea Blush

MAC Pink Tea blush is limited edition. It's from the Tres Cheek collection that launched in early April 2012.    This is actually my favorite blush from the collection, but it seems to be one of the less popular.  This means if you want it, it looks like it's still available at most outlets.

It's a very subtle beige pink color with a satin finish.  I absolutely love it.  Oddly enough, I don't own many pink blushes.  I have tons of coral blushes, but not many pink.  

Pink Tea has a great finish.  It reminds me a lot of the Tarte Amazonian Clay 12-hour Blush in Exposed.  The color isn't really similar, but much like Exposed, it looks super boring in the pan, but on the skin it is very pretty - much less beige and much pinker.

It doesn't have a ton of pigmentation, but it shows up really well on my NW15 skintone.  If you have a darker skintone, I don't know how much payoff you're going to get out of it.

I think this was a great addition to my collection and I'm very happy with it.

The pan contains 6 grams of product and retails for $20.

Overall: 8/10

Review: NARS Illuminator in Copacabana

Next up in my highlighters series is the NARS Illuminator in Copacabana.  The NARS website describes it as:

Light the skin from within. A collection of light-reflecting liquids that glide on to refresh and enhance the complexion with shimmering incandescence. Deceptively sheer, decidedly luminous.

This is in the shade Copacabana which is "glistening pearl".   It comes in 3 other shades, Laguna (brown with gold shimmer), Orgasm (peachy pink with gold shimmer) and Super Orgasm (peachy pink with gold glitter).

The picture below is a deluxe sample size, not the full size.  I picked it up a while ago in my NARS VIB pack from Sephora.

The swatches below were taken without a flash.  It's just using my office lighting.  As you can tell, it is INCREDIBLY iridescent.  I thought the MAC Cream Colour Bases were reflective, but they don't hold a candle to the NARS Illuminator.  This stuff is so shiny.  

It does sheer out, but again, it's really iridescent.  I haven't tried any of the colors so I really can't speak to the different results you might get - especially from the one with glitter rather than shimmer.  This product is pretty thin consistency, so I would assume that you could mix a little of it with your foundation for overall illumination or just use it for spot highlighting.

I actually ended up giving my tube of this product away.  It was just so reflective that I knew I was never going to use it.  I know that some people swear by this, but it is just way too frosty/shimmery for my taste.

A full size Illuminator is 1.1oz and retails for $30.

Overall: 5/10

Review: NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer

At the end of February, I picked up a sample of the NARS Pure Radiance Tinted Moisturizer in Finland (the color, not the country) at the NARS counter of my local Nordstrom (before it was in wide release).  I did a first impressions post here.  I loved the product, but $42 for something labeled a tinted moisturizer is pretty steep in my book, so I held off ... for a while.

Mid-March I went ahead and picked up a full size tube, again in Finland, the lightest shade.  Unlike a lot of tinted moisturizer lines which offer a very limited color range, the NARS line has a whopping 9 shades.  

NARS says that Finland is "Lightest with a neutral balance of pink and yellow undertones".  You can judge for yourself from the swatch below.  I don't think it's neutral.  I think it's yellow.  But sheered out, it looks fine on my pinky skin.

I was surprised by the fact that this tinted moisturizer actually moisturizes.  I've tried several that were just runny foundations.  But this formula is very hydrating on my skin.  It contains SPF 30, which I love.  I really try to wear at least SPF 50 on my face though, so I usually go ahead and apply my regular sunscreen under the tinted moisturizer.  It isn't ideal, but it works.

So I know this is called a tinted moisturizer.  I think that name is incredibly misleading, but in a good way.  The amount of coverage that I get from this tinted product far exceeds the coverage I get from some of my foundations.

I still get a little oily in the T-zone with this product, but nothing bad and certainly no worse than I get from my regular foundations sans primer.  I don't wear this every day, probably more like every other day.  According to NARS, this product is supposed to "reduce the appearance of hyperpigmentation and dark spots for a brighter natural glow."  I will say that I have noticed some of my hyperpigmentation improving.  I can't say for sure that it's because of this product, but it's possible.

I feel like I'm pussyfooting around the issue, so maybe I should just come out and say it.  THIS STUFF IS MAGIC.  Ahem.  I feel better now.  

The only downside is that it has a fairly magical pricetag as well, $42 for 1.9oz.  Compare that to NARS Sheer Glow foundation which is also $42 but for only 1oz of product and I guess it's not so bad.  The Laura Mercier tinted moisturizer is also $42, but for only 1.5oz of product.  Gah, I don't know.  I still feel like $42 for something called a tinted moisturizer is insane.  But at the end of the day, I do love this stuff.  And I do feel like even at this price point, it delivers.

Overall:  9/10

Review: Sephora + Pantone Blush Duo

I've taken quite a few looks at the Sephora + Pantone collection, but I had managed to resist for quite a while.  And then Sephora had their VIB 15% off sale.  And I made the mistake of looking at the collection in person.

The packaging is stunning.  It's a shame in some respects I guess, because what are you going to do with it? It is really heavy duty and the variety of colors and textures is really pretty.  (Scroll down for pictures of the packaging.)  

And then there is the blush duo ...  Again, the packaging is fantastic.  It's a square white palette with two large wells.  The semi-opaque plastic lid is held on like magnets - much like the Inglot square eyeshadow quads, though they aren't identical packaging (I checked.  LOL. Nerd).

I am very amused by the fact that this is the "Blush of the Year" Duo.  And then there's another "Blush of the Year" single.  So yes, 3 "blush of the year" releases.  And as a couple of other bloggers have pointed out (most notably, Elvira at PinkSith who picked up the Tangerine Tango Creme Lipstick), these colors aren't tangerine tango.

For reference, here is the Tangerine Tango swatch from Pantone:

Don't get me wrong.  I love both of these colors.  They are beautiful pinky coral blushes.  But they aren't anywhere close to the actual Pantone Tangerine Tango color.  I'm not upset about that.  I get that the whole Tangerine Tango thing is a gimmick and I am more than happy with the color of these blushes.

The duo retails for $26 dollars and each of the 2 wells contains almost 11g of product.  That's 22g of product total.  Compare that to the Tarte Amazonian Clay Blushes which retails for $25 and contain about 5.5g of product.

As far as a blush duo goes, I really feel like they hit it out of the park.  The colors fit with the Tangerine Tango theme, while being considerably more wearable than the true Tangerine Tango swatch.  The two colors are different enough that they don't feel redundant.  

The matte shade, Desert Flower is Pantone #15-1435 (described as "light orange matte") is a pinky peach, more peach than pink, but still pinker than something like MAC's Immortal Flower.  I definitely wouldn't qualify it as "light orange".

Desert Flower - matte

The shimmery shade, Coral is Pantone #15-1439 (described as "color of the year with gold shimmer").  I did swatch it right next to Nars Orgasm for comparison and now of course, I managed to leave the photo on my other computer.  Bah.  It is really similar to Orgasm, but slightly pinker.

Coral - shimmer

The texture on both of the blushes is very workable.  They aren't the most creamy or finely milled product I've ever used, but do blend easily and have very good pigmentation.  

I personally really like both of these colors and I own at least half a dozen blushes in similar colors (the first step is admitting you have a problem).  The amount of product you get for your money is fantastic.  The colors are in keeping with the theme, but they are very different.  I love that one is matte and one is shimmer.

Overall: 9/10

Review: bareMinerals READY Eyeshadow Quad in Truth

I thought I'd review the eyeshadow palette that I've been using daily for the last week.  It's the bareMinerals READY eyeshadow quad in Truth.  I have no idea why they're yelling READY at us.  I would assume that READY is an acryonym for something, but the Bare Escentuals website isn't being much help in this regard.

Here's what I could find out about the READY line from the Bare Escentuals website:

Pure, intense, provocative color that's incredibly long-wearing and blendable with proven anti-aging benefits.  Available in 15 amazing duos and 4 phenomenal quads

I have no idea what the anti-aging benefits are and like I said, the website is not providing a lot of illumination.  The 4 shades in the Truth quad are:

• Serendipitous  - shimmery off white with micro-glitter.
• Magnetism - warm light brown with a metallic finish.  Reads very taupe in the pan, but on the eye and in swatches, is much warmer.
• Fate - warm dark/medium brown with both a metallic finish and micro-glitter.
• Apropos - dark brown with blue/silver micro-glitter.  The base shadow is matte.

I know that lots of beauty bloggers and YouTube gurus really seem to love the whole line of bareMinerals pressed eyeshadows and the Truth quad in particular has been talked up a lot.  To be blunt, I feel ripped off.  I am incredibly disappointed.

The color payoff is crap.  I will say that the other 2 neutral eyeshadow palettes are my Inglot matte palette and my Smashbox Photo Op Brown Eye palette and both of them have absolutely phenomenal payoff, so that may have skewed my reaction a bit.  But the pigmentation on this palette is incredibly disappointing.  The swatches below are fairly heavy swatches and even with the darkest color, the payoff is still crap.

Also, despite being a neutral palette, there isn't a single matte.  The darkest shadow apropos, does have a matte base, but it also has tons of glitter.

The palette contains a total of 5g of product and it retails for $30.  I used my 20% off at Ulta to purchase it, and I still feel really ripped off.

Overall: 4/10

Review: MAC Immortal Flower Blush

Immortal Flower is another of the blushes from MAC's Tres Cheek limited edition collection released in April 2012.  It is described by MAC as a "bright peach".  

It's a satin finish, but I was a little surprised by how much I had to work to get this color to blend out.  It did blend and I think it is a lovely color, but I thought it was much drier than either Pink Tea or Lovecloud.

I'm wondering if MAC had quality control issues with this production line.  I've seen a couple of other bloggers talk about how one shade in the Tres Cheek was considerably drier than the others, but it seems like it's all over the board as to which shade that was.  I know some people specifically mentioned Pink Tea, but my Pink Tea has a great texture.  Someone else mentioned Lovecloud and again, my Lovecloud is fine.  Who knows.

Anyway, for me, Immortal Flower was the driest texture of the bunch.  It is not unworkable by any means.  I think the swatch looks more pinky than it is in real life.  In real life it is a very true peach.

I have been really hit or miss with MAC and their volume of limited edition collections annoys me to no end. Up to this point I have specifically avoided buying anything that was limited edition. But ... I am in love with the Tres Cheek collection.  I picked up 3 of the blushes and I am very pleased.  I think the colors in this collection are very wearable and flattering.

Overall: 8/10

Review: MAC Skinfinish in Whisper of Gilt

Next up in my series on highlighters is the MAC Skinfinish in Whisper of Gilt.  It is Limited Edition (sorry, but keep an eye out for my next giveaway).  It came out in MAC's Extra Dimension collection that launched at the beginning of April 2012.  It's sold out at MAC online, but as of this blog post, you can still get it at Nordstrom online and I'm sure some MAC counters still have it.

The entire Extra Dimension collection is a new formula from MAC.  The Official blurb from MAC about the collection and the Skinfinishes in particular:

A liquid-powder highlighter with prismatic reflections that sculpts, highlights and models the face. The cool, creamy near-fluid formula creates a luminous, well-defined finish. Wears 10 hours.

Whisper of Gilt is described by MAC as "a light soft white with shimmery sheen".  It definitely has a shimmery sheen, but I don't think I'd categorize it as a soft white.  It's gold.  A lovely gold.  But gold.

I took 2 swatch photos below.  Again, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to photograph highlighters.  There is a heavy swatch on the right and a sheered out swatch on the left.  I think the heavy swatch in the second photo is truer to color, but the sheered out swatch on the first swatch is truer.

The product goes on smooth.  I was a little afraid that the first time I swatched it, that the pattern would be demolished, but it's surprisingly firm.  I'm not buying the marketing bit about "cool, creamy near-fluid formula".  It felt like a powder.  A nice powder, but a powder nonetheless.

The internet tells me that this formula is probably if not an exact copy of the Estee Lauder powder gelee formula, then at the very least a really close copy.  The MAC Extra Dimension skinfinishes have the bonus of being much larger and cheaper than the Estee Lauder powder gelees.

I think this is a beautiful highlighter.  It is a lot more of a true gold than many of the highlighters I own, so I am happy to add it to my collection.  The pan contains a TON of product and I seriously have no idea how I could even hit pan on this, much less use the entire thing.  I am curious to see how the new formula holds up over time since I will definitely have this for a while.

The pan contains 9 grams of product and retails for $29.

Overall:  7/10

Review: Lush Lemony Flutter Cuticle Butter

Last month, I picked up a container of the Lush's Lemony Flutter Cuticle Butter.  I had been using the Burt's Bees Lemon Butter Cuticle Cream and I was happy with it, but I used up my first tin and hadn't yet purchased another.  I was in Lush and they were giving out samples of their cuticle butter.  I tried it and it seemed nice, so I decided to pick up a container.

I suppose I should disclose that I have a very much love-hate relationship with Lush.  When they get it right they absolutely hit it out of the park.  When they get it wrong, it's abysmal.  I almost never have a lukewarm reaction to a Lush product.  Except for this time.

I wish I would say this was a great product or a terrible product, but in my opinion, it's neither.  It was very middle of the road, which was definitely a novel reaction.

The cuticle butter has a nice texture.  It goes on silky smooth.  It isn't too oily.

I really liked the smell of it.  I found it light and lemony.  My husband told me it smelled like lemon pledge (but I often think he's wrong).

I tried it for a little more than a week and it seemed like it just wasn't moisturizing enough.  The formula is so light that it just soaks right into the skin and doesn't hang around like the Burt's Bees.  A side effect of that is that it isn't as moisturizing as the Burt's Bees.  

I use hand sanitizer, A LOT of hand sanitizer.  It's murder on my cuticles so I need something really moisturizing and the Lush cuticle cream just wasn't what I needed.

It's $14.95 for 1.5oz of product (by weight, not volume).  It is a sizable container or product.

If you don't need heavy duty moisturizing out of your cuticle cream (and you live close to a Lush store so you don't have to pay shipping - their shipping rates are highway robbery and one of my chief irritations with them.) this may be the cuticle cream for you.  I'm going back to the Burt's Bees.

Overall: 4/10

Review: MAC Cream Colour Base in Hush

I already covered the MAC Cream Colour base in Pearl and now I'm moving on to the MAC Cream Colour Base in Hush.  

In the US, it retails for $17.50 and you get 3.2g of product.

Blurb from MAC:

Versatile and multi-purpose, Cream Colour Base can be applied directly to bare skin, or layered over foundation, moisturizer, or powder. Apply with a brush, sponge, or fingers. Colour effects range from a light veil to highly dramatic, depending on method of application. Fragrance-free. 

Hush is described by MAC as a "soft peach with icy shimmer (Frost)".  I just had to look that up and I was kind of shocked.  Hush reads much more pink to me than peach.  Definitely a peachy pink.  But still, pink.  Oh well, look at the swatches and tell me what you think.

Like the CCB in Pearl, this is meant for spot highlighting and not overall illuminating.  I know that a lot of people with medium to dark skintones really like it, but it can be used on any skintone.  This is one of the few highlighters that wasn't a total pain in the butt to swatch and photograph.

You can pile it on and get a good amount of pigmentation, though I wouldn't advise it just because it tends to look really greasy.  It does sheer out pretty nicely, even on my very pale skin.  Mixed together with a little bit of Pearl CCB and applied to the cheekbones and browbones and it is just divine.

Sheered out on left, heavy swatch on right.

On my skintone, I don't think it's quite as versatile as the Cream Colour Base in Pearl, but it is lovely.

Overall:  7/10

Review: Wet n' Wild lipsticks

So in keeping with my recent beauty resolution, I am doing my best to wear more lip products.  I don't have many lip products and so I've been trying to pick them up when I can.  I picked up a couple of MAC lipsticks and a NARS lipstick, but at that price point (especially the NARS), I can't do that very often.  So I've been looking at more affordable brands and so far two that I am really impressed with are Rimmel and Wet n' Wild.

I recently got two of the Wet n' Wild lipsticks.  I picked up number 960D, which doesn't appear to have a name.  It has a muted pink color.  I think the swatch skews a bit more orange/brown than it is in real life.

I also picked up number 970, Purty Persimmon, which is very much in line with this summer's tangerine/orange trend.  I've worn it a few times and I do like it, but it certainly is vibrant.

Both lipsticks are in the Wet n' Wild Mega Last Lip Color line.  They aren't entirely matte, but they definitely aren't a creamy finish.  I moisturized well before I applied and they were a bit drying and weren't the most comfortable lipstick to wear.  They were impressively opaque and had good staying power without staining at all.


$2.99 at most drug stores.


Overall:  7/10.

Review: MAC Pro Longwear Eye Shadow in Carefree

Continuing in my series on highlighters, I have a MAC Pro Longwear Eye Shadow in Carefree.  Now, I know, it's an eyeshadow and not a highlighter, but just look at the swatches and I'm sure you'll come around to seeing it as a highlighter as well.

MAC describes their Pro Longwear shadows as:

A unique longwearing Eye Shadow with a silky, creamy texture formulated for maximum colour impact. Easily blendable and buildable; lids are visibly smooth no matter how intense the application. Lasts 8 hours.

Carefree is described as "pale white gold" which is a very good description as far as I'm concerned.

The Pro Longwear pans are 3.4g of product for $20 (the regular MAC shadows are 1.5g of product for $15) so they are sizeable.  The pots for the Pro Longwear shadows are the same size as the pots for the Cream Colour Bases.

The heavier swatch is on the right, the more blended out is on the left. 

So looking at the swatch you might be thinking it looks familiar.  In fact you might be thinking it looks just like the swatch for the MAC Cream Colour Base in Pearl.  And, well, you're mostly right.  I did swatch them side by side just so you could try and find a difference.

In the photo I think the Pro Longwear shadow is a bit more reflective, but in person, they're nearly identical. They both can impart a soft candlelit glow that is incredibly flattering.  The Pro Longwear shadow, being a powder product, is less likely to make you look greasy if you get too heavy handed with it, but aside from that, they produce incredibly similar results.

For another comparison, here are the pans next to each other:

I wish that one of these products was dramatically cheaper, or dramatically larger quantity than the other so that there'd be a clear winner, but again, they're really similar.   The MAC Cream Colour base is 3.2g of product for $17.50 and as I stated earlier, the Pro Longwear shadow is 3.4g of product for $20.  It's a nominal difference both in size and cost, so as for which is better, it probably just comes down to whether you prefer cream highlighters or powder highlighters.

Overall, I think the Pro Longwear shadow is a fantastic product and in this color, very versatile.

Overall:  7/10