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

Review: MAC Cream Colour Base in Pearl

I'm still toying with how to structure the next couple of posts and if any of you have feedback on what you'd like to see, please leave a comment.  I think what I'm going to do is review 3 (or maybe 4) individual products and then at the end, do a post comparing them with each other.  I'll probably do an accompanying YouTube video.

So the first of the higher end highlighters I'm going to cover is the venerable MAC Cream Colour Base in Pearl.  

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. 

There's a reason this product is the go-to cheekbone, brow and cupid's bow highlighter for so many people.  It's awesome.  It has this really beautiful iridescent white gold finish without having any chunky glitter.  Applied lightly it just gives this beautiful sort of glowy effect.

It's not quite as versatile in application as some highlighters.  It's definitely meant for spot highlighting.  You don't want to put this all over your face and you can't really mix it with foundation or anything like that.  (Well, I suppose you could, but I can't imagine why you'd want to.)  You do have to be careful not to over do it as you can end up looking greasy.

When I use it, I generally put some on the pads of my fingers, wipe most of it off on the back of my hand and then take whatever remains and tap it very gently along the tops of my cheekbones and across my brow bones.  It has a beautiful finish that is neither glittery (like NARS albatross) nor overly shimmery (like NARS Illuminator in Copacabana). 

On to the pictures.  (I swear, I did take a picture of this when I first bought it - and before it had a huge fingerprint right in the middle of it, but those pictures didn't turn out very well so I had to redo them after I'd used the product.  And while we're on the subject, do you have any idea how difficult it is to swatch and photograph highlighters?  Count yourself lucky if you don't because it is an incredible pain in the butt.)

Light swatch on left.  Heavier swatch on right.

Is it worth it?  It probably depends on how much disposable income you have.  It's a great product and it's a lot easier in my experience to control the intensity and get very precise application with a cream product than with a powder product.  A little bit goes a long way and unless you're a makeup artist, you can probably plan on a pot of this lasting you forever.

Like I mentioned earlier, it's for spot highlighting and not overall illuminating purposes.  It works great on fair and fair-medium skintones, but may not look so great on anything darker.

Overall:  7/10

Have you guys tried it?  If so, what did you think?

Review: Smashbox Photo Op Eye Enhancing Palette - Brown Eyes

Soft Trio

• marble - silvery pinkish taupe - frost finish, no glitter

• wine - burgundy with pink glitter

• bark - greenish/gold/brown with gold glitter

Smoky Trio

• vanilla - matte cream

• brazilian bronze - gold/brown with a metallic finish

• navy - matte navy

For the last 10 days I've been exclusively using this palette and for the most part, it has performed fantastically well. The palette itself is quite versatile. While I'm not sold on the idea of only wearing certain colors based on your eye color, I do like the colors in this palette and I think they could be used on any eye color. There are a variety of colors and finishes which can be combined in a multitude of ways.


The mattes in this palette are phenomenal. They are so incredibly creamy and pigmented. They are just fantastic. I didn't think that anybody could do a better matte than Inglot, but I have to say the mattes in this palette are even creamier. It's not that the other finishes in this palette are bad, it's just that the mattes are so fantastic.


I can tell you I'm going to hit pan on the vanilla shade in this palette long before any other color because it is such a staple for my skintone.


The navy matte from the smoky trio reads much more navy in the pan than it does on the skin. On the skin it is a much brighter blue.


The brown shades are both solid performers with good pigmentation.


Marble, the pinky taupe color, is really beautiful, but subtle.


For me the biggest, and really only, disappointment in this palette was wine, the glittery burgundy shade. It's a glitter shade so you get best payoff with it by putting it on with a laydown brush, but since I really don't care to wear colors like this across the lid, I was stuck trying to blend it out in the crease. When you try and blend this color it just falls apart. The glitter is gone and you lose all the purple shading and it becomes just a dirty gray color which is very apparent in the swatch below. Like I said, I'm sure if I had applied it more carefully it would have worked out a lot better but I'm not a fan of shadows that have to be handled this carefully.

The palette itself is really sturdy and makes great use of space. It is small and compact, which I really liked. At first it was a little disconcerted to get something so small after spending so much money, but like I said, after having fought with overly large palettes, I've come to really appreciate the concise manner of this palette.

Smashbox has a series of these palettes. There are also palettes for blue and hazel eyes. They are $42 from Sephora.

Overall: 8/10.