Friday, March 25, 2016

REVIEW: Glossier Phase 2

Wearing the Perfecting Skin Tint and Stretch Concealer in Light and Generation G Lipstick in Like; skin prepped with Soothing Face Mist before application.

I was more than a little skeptical of Glossier.com when their brand first launched, and I admit that I remained unimpressed for some time after the first wave of products was released. Boy Brow was very meh on me, Balm Dot Com dried my mouth out and felt heavy on my skin, and the ingredients list for the two masks terrified me. But the slick marketing pulled me in again, and I decided to test out the Perfecting Skin Tint. Lucky for me, that tint has become a staple in my collection. So when Glossier launched two new makeup items--the Stretch Concealer and the Generation G Lipstick--in a new "Phase 2" set, I decided to give them a shot.

The Phase 2 set comes with a pot of the Stretch Concealer, a tube of Generation G lipstick, and a tube of Boy Brow, all in the shade of your choice. Each item is $18 individually while the full Phase 2 set is $50; unlike the Phase 1 set, you save a few dollars by buying the kit. (ETA: I accidentally fibbed--Boy Brow is currently $16, so you're only saving $2 when you buy the kit.) I already reviewed Boy Brow in a previous post, however, so I passed on the set. Instead, I bought the concealer in 10 Light and the lipsticks in Like and Jam.

Generation G Lipsticks

Jam normally applies even smoother. I just hadn't exfoliated my lips for a while before I took this picture. Sorry. :(

Glossier claims they're going for a "soft, popsicle-stain flush" with this product, and they outright state that "no lipstick in the history of lipsticks looks like this." It's meant to have the pigmentation and comfort of a tinted balm with the look of a stain. And man, does that sound gorgeous!

It's true that the Generation G lipsticks have a flushed, stain-like look on the lips, and that's kind of cool. But saying they wear like a tinted balm and suggesting "no lipstick in the history of lipsticks looks like this"? Eh, you're pushing it. Tinted balms don't generally hydrate my lips, but good ones are practically imperceptible and non-drying. Generation G lipsticks are weightless when your lips are parted, every-so-slightly sticky when you press them together, and a tad bit drying. I find myself wanting some balm on top after a couple of hours, though I can manage without it. They can also apply a tad patchy or uneven if you try to swipe on just one layer; I found that my best bet for even color payoff was slathering the lipstick all around my recently exfoliated mouth a few times.

With that said, these lipsticks do have a very pretty effect on the lips without being as fiddly as most traditional liquid stains. They're vaguely soft-focus and fit with Glossier's "sheer, easy, and full o' silicone slip" standards. It might sound weird, but they kind of "veil" the lips: even when I wear Jam at full opacity, my lips still look like lips, not like they've been painted on my face. (Not that that's a bad thing--I often love a lipstick that looks like car lacquer.) This sheer stain effect means that, while these have totally average wear, they fade evenly. There's also a video of a Glossier employee applying some of the Generation G in Jam to her cheeks, and yes, this is a lipstick formula that works well for that due to the slip

This finish means that all four shades look pretty good on most skintones...and because the folks at Glossier are no dummies when it comes to marketing, they've proven it on their product page. Could we please have an option to zoom in on those shade photos, though? Some of us have shitty vision.


Also, I'm generally cool with Glossier's minimal plastic packaging, but the Generation G lipstick is the first product in the range to make me think, "That looks cheap." The white plastic tubes lack any heft and the plastic appears thin. In fact, the lipstick even has a vague plastic taste. It won't weigh down your bag or take up a ton of room in your lipstick holder, but overall, I'm just not wowed by the packaging.

Still, this is an nice natural matte lipstick for people who love that smooth finish and easy application. They're great for work or lazy weekends. I'll likely toss a tube of Cake (the peach shade) in to my next order.

PS: I noticed that the actual Generation G lipstick tubes say "0.04 oz," but the Glossier website said 1.13oz when I first copied the information from the website. The error has since been corrected. For comparison, a $32 NARS Audacious lipstick contains 0.14oz of product and an $8 Flower Beauty lipstick contains 0.12oz of product. The Generation G lipsticks are definitely on the small side.

RATING: 4 out of 5


Stretch Concealer

Direct sunlight on top, indirect sunlight in middle, flash on bottom. From left to right: Glossier Stretch Concealer and Perfecting Skin Tint in 10 Light, Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Fair Neutral, and OCC Tinted Moisturizer in Y0.

While the Perfecting Skin Tint is a smidgen dark for me in swatches, it applies a bit lighter when sheered out, and I can get away with it because it's so sheer. The Stretch Concealer looked darker to me in the pot and clearly had more coverage, so I was a bit nervous. But I noticed that, in the few Phase 2 Set videos that popped up around the release date, a lot of people were using a lighter shade in the concealer. (For instance: people who used the Skin Tint in Dark, the third shade, used the concealer in Medium, the second shade.) This gave me hope.

The hope was a little misguided, though, because yes, it matches my face and not the rest of my body. I can still get away with it if I'm wearing something sheerer/darker like the Perfecting Skin Tint, slash, if I'm only using it under my eyes, but the shade is a stark contrast to my paler, more yellow foundations. People my skintone can get away with the Perfecting Skin Tone in Light, but the Stretch Concealer in Light is a better fit for NW15 folks.



 Regardless, I still tested this bad boy out on both my undereyes and my super-persistent cheek zit. (Lovingly, I have named this zit Fernando.) The formula contains cocoa butter, so it's slightly dewy and very emollient; this made it a truly awesome light coverage undereye concealer. As the ad copy suggests, it looks like skin, not makeup. It blends best with the warmth of your fingers, though you can also dab the product on with a brush. I think this would be an excellent choice for my great skin days when I just want to look a little brighter on my undereye area.

I was not at all impressed with how this covered Fernando, though. It looked dry and a little patchy over the blemish, and despite Glossier's claims that the coverage is buildable, I couldn't get more than a slight softening effect. I think this is because it has that emollient formula: if you try to layer more on, it's just going to slip around. As you can see in the photographs, Fernando and my little chin pimple scar are less noticeable with the concealer on, but they're definitely still there.

The staying power of this product is also so-so, though again, this is to be expected from a very creamy and dewy formula. I found that I had to reapply the product to my undereyes and my blemishes after around 4 or 5 hours on a comfortable spring day. Applying powder on top did give me a more matte finish, but it didn't increase the wear time.

The Stretch Concealer is excellent for the undereyes, not so great for blemishes. It's not as buildable as they claim, but it's very workable on normal to dry skin, which is a plus. Hence, it's a decent concealer, not a fantastic one. I will note, however, that the price is fair: you get a standard 0.17oz of product for $18.

RATING: 3 out of 5

If you're interested in purchasing this product (or any others) from Glossier, feel free to use my affiliate link in this post--everybody with an account gets one, so this isn't a paid post, I swear. You'll get 20% off your order, I'll get $10 in credit. If that's not your thang, just go to Glossier.com to get your products, no affiliation required.

Affiliate Link: Glossier

19 comments:

  1. The lipstick sounds interesting! You description reminds me of the Revlon balm stains, which are one of my favorite products. Especially the "veil" effect. Have you tried those? If so, do you think there's a similarity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did try the balm stains! I don't think they're the same: the Revlon stains were glossier, had a wetter feel on the lips, and were more pigmented. These are definitely meant to be translucent, and they have a more matte finish and feel.

      Delete
  2. I've been wearing Jam since I got it yesterday, and my basic impressions are the same: I'm impressed with the formula and appearance but disappointed in the packaging. For $18, it should be at least as good as MAC's! And yeah, I had a laugh at the claim that NO LIPSTICK EVER has looked like this. The sheer matte effect is pretty cool, but surely not unprecedented. Thanks again, by the way! I think I'll get a lot of use out of Jam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. Just curious, what do you find terrifying about the mask ingredients? I definitely looked askance at the lemon in one of them...

      Delete
    2. I noticed tons of fruit extracts (which always pings my alarm bells) mixed in with a lot of decent ingredients you can get in simpler formulations, like squalene and honey. Also, I'm 90% sure I have an issue with shea butter, but if I want to keep testing that theory out, it's not going to be with that mask.

      Delete
  3. Jam is totally beautiful, and Like is exactly the neutral-cool sheer pink my heart desires, but Glossier just... doesn't appeal to me. The branding, the packaging, the hi-res images of gloriously cheekboned models with nigh-flawless faces. Meh. It's not my style of makeup (forever chained to the goth teen in my heart) and I highly doubt it would work well on my oily and persistently acne-prone skin. I'm on and off intrigued by the skin tint, but I don't really want to go back to powdering my face like it's 1779 if the dewiness doesn't work out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a makeup style that always appealed to me, but as I've gotten older, it's sort of become what I seek for work days. Glossier definitely strikes me as a brand that's geared more towards normal to dry skin, however, and the Perfecting Skin Tint definitely doesn't have great oil control.

      Delete
  4. Thanks for the review. Yours are always so thoughtful and helpful. Waiting for my kit to arrive, the only product I'm really at all excited to try is the concealer, still haven't found one that sits well on my undereyes. I think I need one that comes with a time machine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! I hope you'll like Boy Brow, too. I really wish I did, because on people with decent brows, it's a great product.

      Delete
  5. I would love to try the skin tint and the bow brow, but it annoys me that Glossier is still not available in Canada. This makes me avoid going through the effort of finding someone to purchase and ship to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're still working on broadening their shipping range. Hopefully soon!

      Delete
  6. Wow this is the most detailed & straightforward review I have seen on this range! Though my 3 lippies and 1 boy brow are already on their way not to be stopped, I found your review helpful:) It would have been much better if you confirmed the lippies to be wonderful, but Ill happily live with what I have happily ordered X)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do really like the lippies, I just don't think they're quite perfect. It usually takes a lot of wonderful to get a 5 from me. :)

      Delete
  7. Good to know about the concealer. I liked that it was a lighter style concealer because often my skin looks pretty good and could use some minor correcting with a product that looks like skin. I'd still be into it but the 4 hour lasting time? Yikes. I need a concealer to last or any base product to last for the majority of the day. I love the look of the stains on you. I hope they do a lash tint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be absolutely stunned if they didn't get in on the lash stain game. That Milk one was a major disappointment, so they have room to fill the niche.

      Delete
    2. I really like Elf's lash tint (or whatever they call it) and think of it as an honorary Glossier product because it fits the aesthetic (minimal, enhancing) and I use it when I use other Glossier products. It's wet and thin and darkens, but doesn't really volumize or lengthen or curl.
      I feel like Glossier is missing their take on mascara and on some kind of eye color/liner. I'd say sunscreen, but one of their people says that's coming this summer (fingers crossed.)

      Delete
    3. I feel that eye liner would run counter to the "skin first" look they're so keen on, though easy-to-apply eye colors could be a next step. I heard about the sunscreen--very curious to get the deets!

      Delete
  8. Like would be a workhorse product for me but I'm lazy about ordering online - much prefer my in-store instant gratification :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, I'm starting to prefer ordering online. Amazon Prime has become my best friend. I think I'm becoming anti-social.

      Delete