1P2L: Pencil Eyeliner with Glossier Colorslide + Glossier Play Mini-Reviews

Like most beauty bloggers, I assumed Glossier was about due for a "more full-on" makeup range, and I figured Glossier Play would be it. When they launched a range that prompted some excitement and a slew of criticisms, my initial feelings toward the four new cosmetics and two new tools were relatively mild. Yes, I was excited for the highlighters, but my reaction to highlighters is as instinctual and simple as my two-year-old niece's response to french fries. The lack of professional swatches on multiple skintones--something Glossier has been relatively good about for the past few years--leads me to believe that the launch was a little rushed.

All of this said, I received a slew of Instagram messages and emails when this line was announced, so clearly there's been some hype and interest surrounding the range. And frankly, a fun, colorful cache of products I could buy with the store credit you lovely people have earned me (thanks!) couldn't have at come at a better time. Between Kirby fighting a nasty bout of shingles and me being whacked with the depression hammer, the first half of March reminded me just how important fun and relaxation are.

Now, a lot of people have complained that this launch doesn't suit the "Glossier look." I can't entirely agree. For starters, there's a reason why they're launching these products under a sub-brand: they know it's not their usual no-makeup-makeup. But more importantly, this strikes me as "cool girl" party makeup, the kind of stuff naturally pretty people slap on their faces when they go out and want to try something a little different. None of it is designed for precise cut creases or stage-worthy Instaglam looks, and in my opinion, that's very Glossier.

There's also been a lot of debate about the design and environmental impact of these products. This delightful post from Auxiliary Beauty sums up most of my feelings about this. I'll add that I thought the 1970s-as-seen-by-Y2K-teenagers fonts and boxes were very cute. They hit me right in the "oh fuck that was middle school" nostalgia. However, like most people, I think wrapping each product in an extra piece of foil, then putting in to a box, is a wee bit excessive. It's also suspicious to me that Glossier claims they spent two years preparing this brand, yet they didn't think to use biodegradable glitter. Their consumer base is almost all Gen Z and Millenials, and we're groups that tend to worry about climate change and plastic consumption. To their credit, Glossier has listened to the criticisms; they will phase out the foil packets and plan on reformulating their products with biodegradable glitter.

Since I'm ranting, may I also point out that Glossier is STILL doing that "this is so unique and there's nothing like it" marketing, and it just doesn't work for them? Colorful pencil eyeliners and glitter gel have been around for decades, but they're releasing ad copy like this:

For the millionth time: there are more marketing tactics than the appeal to novelty. Customers like me are drawn to how easy and effortless Glossier's range is, and some are drawn to the "cool factor." But I'm not seeing a single, not-a-Glossier-rep person gushing over how "new" and "original" these products are. Play to your strengths, Glossier.

Enough complaining; let's get on to the swatches, looks, and reviews!

As mentioned, Glossier Play was launched with four new makeup products and two tools. The first makeup product is Colorslide, a range of colorful eyeliners. I got five shades: Adult Swim and Disaster Class for day-to-day wear, and Early Girl, Nectar, and Jumbo for experimentation and fun. All of these shades are matte, but there are metallic colors in the range, if that's more your gig. The Colorslide pencils are $15 each.

I've also sharpened them with the Blade sharpener. I get that a sharpener isn't something most people are going to lose their shit over, but this is a pretty nice one at an agreeable $4. It comes with a purple "cleaning stick" that you can twist in the sharpener to clean out the blade.

Next, we have those not-yet-biodegradable Glitter Gelees. I have three of the four shades: Glass Bonsai, Phantasm, and Firewalk. They're all technically suspended in a clear base and are, therefore, meant to be layered or used as sparkle rather than as full-on eyeshadows. But you can see that some of the shades contain a bit more of the fine shimmer, which makes the base seem less clear; this is most obvious with Firewalk. Phantasm, meanwhile, contains no fine shimmer and is all larger, more obvious holographic glitter shapes. Glass Bonsai is somewhere in the middle as far as opacity goes.

The product I was least excited for, shocker of shockers, was the Vinylic Lip. Yes, a liquid lip product in a click pen with a spongey applicator takes me right back to my first order from ELF, I'm not gonna lie. But I'm not a huge gloss person, and I find clicky pens a bit of a pain to use. It took me 41 clicks to get product out of Pony, and a whopping 71 clicks with Baby. I also find Glossier's color descriptions a little weird: Pony is less "taupe" to me and more mauve, and "Baby" reads more like a strawberry pink than a saturated, blue-based red.

By contrast, I was beyond hyped to see that they were releasing more full-on highlighters, because...highlighters. I purchased the two lightest Niteshine shades, the yellow-based Pale Pearl and the pink-based Platinum Rose.

Here are two looks I created with my Glossier Play products. (The only one not shown here is the Glitter Gelee in Glass Bonsai.) On the left, we have my attempt at something a little more full-on. I used the Jumbo and Disaster Class liners as bases, then added Glossier Lidstar in Cub to the center of my eye and topped it with two layers of Firewalk Glitter Gelee. I lined my lower lashline with Nectar. On the whole, I enjoy the eye look:

Interestingly, neither the Colorslide pencils nor the Glitter Gelee applied the way I expected. Glossier describes Colorslide as a "technogel eye pencil," implying it has a smooth gel formula. I actually found these pencils very waxy, and they tugged at my lids a little as I applied them. Disaster Class was especially difficult to use and applied patchy when I tried to use it as a base. Also, while I was able to get some intense color out of the Colorslide pencils, it took at least two layers to reach full saturation, sometimes three. And using these all over your eyelid when they're a waxy formula that catches? This can happen:

Yeah, that's frustrating.

In short, you can use these as eyeshadow bases, but it's a real pain in the ass, and some of the shades work better than others. These also take a little more effort to transfer to your waterline as compared to a true gel or khol-type pencil. If you're going to get these, go for the more pastel, interesting shades, like Nectar and Easy Girl, which are perfectly serviceable and can be tough to get in a decent formula. As a whole, though, I don't think these eyeliners are particularly special.

I had much better luck with the Glitter Gelees. Now, some people have complained these glitter gels made a huge mess on their face and left a ton of fallout all over their cheeks. In video reviews that stated this, I noticed that the person would apply the glitter to their eyelid, then immediately start blinking and moving their eyes all over the place. A product like this needs a minute to dry, so just be patient and keep your eye as still as you can right after application. I had absolutely zero glitter fallout or movement from all three Glitter Gelee shades after they'd dried, which sort of stunned me.

For the second, more natural look, I used Easy Girl and Adult Swim on my upper lashline to create a simple, slightly winged eyeliner, then lined my upper waterline with Adult Swim and tapped a bit of Phantasm Glitter Gelee at the corner of my eye. Phantasm is the glitter most people are excited about, and I can see why; it's just really fun and pretty.

For both looks, I used their Detailer to apply the glitter. A silicone applicator is definitely the best way to apply these, since it gives you more control and limits the mess, but you don't have to buy this one. Plenty of other brands make cheap silicone applicators.

Both the Colorslides and Glitter Gelees had great staying power; there was no fallout and minimal fading/smearing throughout the day. I use baby oil and cottons to remove them. The glitter is especially tenacious and should be kept out of your plumbing as much as possible, so you'll probably want to hold the oil-soaked cotton on your skin for a while to loosen it up.

For the more dramatic look, I wanted a super-shiny, very bold, definitely red lip, but I didn't get that with the Vinylic Lip in Baby. In fact, when I tried to layer it, I got only slightly more color, but I also noticed flakes on my lips that I didn't see before--see above. And it still never became "high shine" like Glossier promised. It's a thin, lightweight, decently comfortable formula with a faint strawberry smell. Nothing terrible, nothing to write home about. Frankly, I think Glossier should have produced colored versions of their regular gloss instead, since it is far shinier and more full-on than this formula.

I'll definitely get more use out of Pony, which I used for the softer look. One layer gave me that wearable, work-appropriate mauve shade that's perfect for work.

Last, but not least, we have the Niteshine Highlighter Concentrate. In terms of payoff and shine, I'd say these are like Glossier Haloscopes and Becca Shimmering Skin Perfectors had a baby: they're shinier and more obvious than the Haloscope, but they manage to do it without being sparkly a la the SSP. It's a nice product with a thin, liquid formula that can be built up. Just make sure you blend them out fast, because they dry within seconds. I'm wearing Platinum Rose on my cheekbones in the full-on look, Pale Pearl on my cheekbones and under my brows in the more natural look.

While I really enjoy these and will get good use out of them, I have two quibbles. First, the shade range is just plain dumb. Platinum Rose and Pale Pearl are almost identical on your skin, and the two darker shades look similarly close. If you're releasing glitter gel and colorful eyeliner, and if your ads are full of disco and rave-inspired shots, you should probably come out with some more interesting colors. A lavender, for instance, would've been an on-trend option. Second, these suffer from the same packaging problems as the Lidstars: the lids are small, smooth, and difficult to turn. Anybody with limited hand mobility is going to have a rough time opening these highlighters.

When it's all said and done, I don't think this launch is as terrible as some people are making it out to be, but I also don't think it's full of products you have to rush out and buy. True, I really love the Glitter Gelees, and I'll use the Niteshine Highlighters regularly. But one of each, tops, will probably be more than enough for most people. And while the Colorslide pencils and Vinylic lips aren't dreadful, they certainly aren't worth it when you have brands like Colourpop producing better stuff at a lower price. If Glossier wants to improve this range, I suggest that they:

• Fulfill their promise to use biodegradable glitter in the Glitter Gelee,
• Improve the shade ranges for several of the products, and
• Focus on creating what their fans have actually been asking for, like a cream bronzer or a tinted moisturizer/foundation with a bit more coverage. 

PS: I'll be taking a very short break from writing this blog to focus on work. I should be back by the end of March!

PPS: WHERE IS THAT GODDAMN CANDLE YOU PROMISED, GLOSSIER?!

Note: All of these products were purchased with Glossier store credit earned via an affiliate link. I have not been paid to test, photograph, or write about anything in this post. My reviews are always honest. Actually, Glossier is probably a bit sick of sending me so much free shit, given how poorly I've rated some of their releases. Sorry, guys.

Charlotte Tilbury Mini Reviews

Charlotte Tilbury is a talented makeup artist, no doubt, but between her using the word "pop" a few too many times in her videos and her Into the Gloss interview that described wearing makeup to bed so her husband doesn't see her bare-faced, I've found it a bit hard to stomach her as a person. For a time, those feelings were transposed to her makeup line. I held off trying it for a couple of years.

Now that I have tried several products from the range, I have to admit that I'm impressed. Is every product as revolutionary and unique as she claims in her tutorials? Of course not; sometimes, a black eyeliner is just a black eyeliner. However, most of the range seems solid, and while there are some definite duds, there are also a few standouts that I would wholeheartedly recommend. So it's time to give them their due and write some mini reviews. (I've already written a full review of the Light Wonder Foundation, which you can read here.)

I purchased the Beauty Light Wand from Nordstrom earlier this year, and I gotta say, the hype is real. It's a beautiful champagne gold highlight that maintains a wet, glossy look even after drying down. It looks amazing in photographs and always garners compliments in real life. I've also used it on my eyes without any irritation or issues--your mileage may vary. I am a bit weirded out by the sponge tip applicator because you can't really clean it, but I like that you can lock the tube so it doesn't leak in your bag. It has become one of the stars of my highlighter collection.

The other three products mentioned in this review were sent to me by Influenster in preparation for Charlotte Tilbury's big Sephora launch. Let's start with the Hot Lips lipstick, which I expected to get in a more muted shade like Secret Salma and instead received in the very nude color Kim K.W. This is one of two satin shades in the range, and if by satin they mean "not matte," then okay, I'm fine with it. But for me, "satin" has always been between a true matte (with no shine) and a glossy, rich-looking cream, ie, most of the Besame Classic Color lipstick range. Charlotte Tilbury Kim K.W. has more of that plush look I associate with cream finishes.

Quibbling aside, it's a good lipstick. It feels comfortable on the lips, it isn't drying, and it photographs really well. It can look a bit smeary on me in real life, but I think that's just because the color is so light, and using a darker lip liner around the edges of my mouth definitely helps. That said, I won't spend $34 on another tube unless they make a shade I desperately want. It doesn't beat the aforementioned $22-a-tube Besame lipsticks, so it's not worth the extra $12 to me.

If any of the Charlotte Tilbury makeup products disappointed me, it was the Colour Chameleon Eye Shadow Pencil, which I received in the shade Champagne Diamonds. It's not awful, it's just...very meh. Based on the name and the description ("mineral, soft-focus effects transform and enhance eye color for a range of looks"), I expected something complex and versatile. What I got was a pretty but plain champagne color with some flecks of glitter, which looks ordinary and one-dimensional even in the above macro shots. Eh.

That said, the actual formula of the eyeshadow pencils is just fine. It's a bit dryer than I expected, but it applies smoothly and evenly, and it definitely sets. I had no issues with creasing, and I didn't notice any of the glitter dropping down on my face. Again, this is not something I'd purchase with my own money, but I'm not opposed to wearing it or recommending it. It's a wonderful product for long days at the office, for instance. I just expected a little more shade complexity from a $27 eyeshadow called Color Chameleon. I'll stick with the cheaper Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses for now.

Now...let's talk about the Magic Cream. I'm trying to be more restrained with my skincare snark, since I've gone through half a dozen bottles of a $24 cleanser that is objectively rather basic. But I think a $100 cream that claims to contain "patented anti-aging, hydrating, and youth-boosting ingredients" that can "fight the aging process" needs to back up its claims with more than run-of-the-mill cloggers. I'd joke that reading this ingredients list gave me nightmares if it weren't all so generic. Butylene glycol and glycerin are cheap-as-dirt moisturizers included in most affordable options. Dimethicone is a form of silicone, and it's often used in skincare to make it seem smoother and more softening than it really is. Shea butter is a lovely ingredient, but it clogs my face like crazy. So on and so forth. Basically, it's $100 worth of hype based off of a mixture of other moisturizers Charlotte used to slap on runway models' faces.

Even if I weren't rolling my eyes a little too hard at this cream, I wouldn't be impressed. As expected, it didn't patch test well on my face, but I could use it on my neck and hands. It was a wholly average moisturizer with a thick lotion texture that took some time to soak in, then provided adequate moisture. And that's it. I'm sorry, but for $100 a tub, you'd better make my dry-as-a-grilled-chicken-breast skin plump, soft, and super-hydrated.

The only thing I liked about Charlotte's Magic Cream was the soft baby powder scent that reminded me of my mother, and I only liked that smell when it was on my hands. I certainly wouldn't want my face to smell like that.

I know that three out of four mini reviews ending with "I wouldn't spend my money on it" sounds like a lot of negativity. It's not: the makeup is usually good, sometimes great, occasionally shit, just like most other brands. It's just that I have found cheaper products I like just as much (Besame lipsticks) or better (Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses), and in those cases, I'm always going to save a few dollars. The Charlotte Tilbury makeup products are still worth recommending, say, if you want a nice nude lipstick or a quick and easy eye color for work.

The skincare range? Not so much. I've looked at some of the formulas for other products, and I'll take a hard pass on trying those in the future.

Charlotte Tilbury products will be available at Sephora on September 13.

This product was sent to me by Influenster in exchange for an honest review.

Moderate Stash: Highlighters

Despite the fact that I'm borderline obsessed with highlighter, I don't write about it much. It's been over three years since my last collection post. Maybe I'm just too busy trying foundations and raving about lipsticks; regardless, I've done my highlighter stash a disservice, and that must be rectified.

Now, when I announced on Instagram that I was writing this post, I received some wonderful recommendations from followers, like "Tell us how long they last." Part of the problem, though, is that...I don't generally have a problem with my highlighters fading. This is partially because I use creams and liquids exclusively, and they're more likely to "stick" to your skin, and partially because my skin is uber-dry, so makeup clings to it. That said, I'm going to do my very best to give you a useful description of the finish, color, wear, packaging, and purpose of all of these highlighters.

Please note that this information was accurate at the time of this post. Prices change, new shades are created, old shades are discontinued, formulas are altered, etc. I mean, damn, MAC lipsticks weren't even $15 when I bought my first one, and now they've crept up to $18, fifty cents more per tube at a time. Time is a great thickener of things products.

Lastly, my birthday is coming up next week! If you've enjoyed my blog and want to show your appreciation, please consider (but don't feel required to) leave me a "tip" on Ko-Fi. I donate all of the tips to charity; right now, my charity of choice is Pro Literacy. If that's not in the cards for you right now, no problem! I love "happy birthday" comments and emails as well. :)

MAC Strobe Cream in Pinklite

Cost: $34 for 1.7oz, $12 for 1oz
Formula: Lotion
Packaging: Squeeze tube.
Other Shades: Goldlite, Peachlite, Redlite, Silverlite (1oz size only available in Pinklite)
Finish: Natural
Color: Faintly pink and opalescent.
Description: I've gone through at least three of the travel size Strobe Cream tubes, and now that they've expanded the shade range, I can see me emptying dozens more. This is actually a luminous moisturizer, and you can absolutely use it in that capacity if you don't mind the shine and need just a bit of hydration. Because of the thin lotion texture, it appears incredibly natural and seamless on the skin and gives you that no-makeup-makeup, "I slept really well" look. I usually use this as a highlighter on foundation-free days for work (left photo), or I mix it in to my foundation and use a dab more on top of my cheekbones for a soft glow (right photo). Note: the travel size tubes are actually cheaper by the ounce, but as of right now, you can only get them in the original Pinklite shade.
Purchase: MAC Cosmetics

ELF Beautifully Bare Targeted Natural Glow Stick in Morning Dew

Cost: $4 for 0.08oz
Formula: Oil Stick
Packaging: Twist up stick.
Other Shades: Pink Pearl Glow, Champagne Glow
Finish: Wet
Color: Clear
Description: I was pretty bummed when I realized the Ciate Dewy Stix contained some of my no-no ingredients, then thrilled when The Critical Babe mentioned this much cheaper product as an alternative. While the other two shades are a bit garish and sparkly, Morning Dew is completely clear and gives you a "wet skin" look in seconds. That's not shocking when you look at the ingredients and feel this product on your skin: it's an actual oil stick, not a traditional highlighter. This means it will look super glossy and gorgeous without being sparkly, but it will also stay tacky on your face and may seriously clog some people. Also, while $4 is a great price, you're not getting a ton of product here, so keep that in mind if you plan on using this highlighter regularly.
Purchase: ELF Cosmetics

Glossier Haloscope in Quartz

Cost: $22 for 0.19oz
Formula: Cream Stick
Packaging: Twist up stick.
Other Shades: Topaz, Moonstone
Finish: Glossy; can look wet in some lights.
Color: Very Pale Champagne
Description:  Like the ELF Beautifully Bare Targeted Natural Glow Stick, this is an oil-laden highlighter in stick form. I refer to it as a "cream stick," though, because it has a smoother, less oily texture and a bit of fine shimmer in it for a dash of color. (It still stays sticky on the skin.) That might sound unattractive, but I love the ease of this highlighter, which I can swipe on and blend out in less than a minute. The mixture of smooth oils and barely-there color make it ideal for photographs, where it catches the light will still looking incredibly natural. This is probably my personal favorite Glossier product. I have tried the other two shades, and while Moonstone was a bit meh to me, I really liked Topaz. It's just too warm and dark for my skintone.
Purchase: Glossier

Charlotte Tilbury Hollywood Beauty Light Wand in Spotlight

Cost: $38 for 0.4oz
Formula: Liquid
Packaging: Squeeze tube with a sponge tip applicator and on/off mechanism.
Other Shades: none
Finish: Glossy; slightly metallic when layered.
Color: Champagne
Description: The cost of Charlotte Tilbury products generally makes me want to die, but because this one was a decent size and everybody was bragging on it, I decided to throw my Nordstrom gift card at it. I'm glad I did,  because I totally get the hype! It's a champagne-colored highlight with fine shimmer that gives you a light-catching, slightly glossy look; you can layer on a little extra and get a more metallic shine, but it's never going to be overdone. Now, is it as wet-looking as something like the ELF stick? No, but the benefit of the Charlotte Tilbury is that the liquid formula actually dries down. This means you can use it around your eyes as well. (Peep it on the inner corners of my eyes in the right photo.) I also like that the tube has a little on/off mechanism to prevent the highlighter from seeping out in your luggage or your handbag. The sole downside for me is that this is the only shade available, and because it is more golden, I have to use it on a full face of makeup to make it "fit."
Purchase: Nordstrom

Becca Shimmering Skin Perfector in Pearl

Cost: $41 for 1.7oz, $19 for 0.68oz
Formula: Liquid
Packaging: Airless pump for full size, squeeze tube for travel size.
Other Shades: Moonstone, Opal, Topaz, Rose Gold, Champagne Pop, Prosecco Pop (0.68oz size only available in Moonstone and Opal)
Finish: Ranges from natural to metallic, depending on how much product you use.
Color: White
Description: Becca Shimmering Skin Perfector is the OG "WOW THAT LIQUID HIGHLIGHTER" product, and it's still a tough one to beat. While it's costly, you get a ton of product, and the littlest dot goes a long way. Apply a small amount with a flat brush for a natural look, or layer it on with your fingers for that metallic "Instagram Glow." This is definitely a shimmery highlighter, but at least in the shades I've tried (Pearl and Moonstone), it's a very refined shimmer. Still, I'm not a fan of mixing this in to my foundation; it's just too shiny. The "Pop" shades purportedly contain chunkier glitter. Also, be aware that this formula contains sunscreen ingredients that some people find sensitizing. I've had my tube of Shimmering Skin Perfector since college and it's still almost half full, so I will be getting rid of it at the end of the year to be safe. If they ever make Pearl available in the easier-to-finish travel size, I will absolutely repurchase it.
Purchase: Sephora

Milk Makeup Holographic Stick in Mars

Cost: $28 for 1oz, $14 for 0.25oz
Formula: Cream Stick
Packaging: Twist up stick.
Other Shades: Supernova, Stardust
Finish: Shimmery
Color: Peach glow with faint purple shimmer.
Description: I wanted this highlighter in its original lavender shade, Supernova, for quite a while, but when I swatched them in my local Sephora, I realized that Mars looked much prettier and more refined. The peach base almost blends in to my skintone, leaving me with some shine and a bit of purple shimmer that's only visible when you're very close to me. In other words, this is sparkly and far from natural, but it isn't outright glittery. The texture of this cream stick is a little more powdery than the Glossier or ELF products, and it dries down more on my skin. It's not a shade I reach for regularly, since I tend to prefer "natural" or "glossy" to "shimmery," but it's damned pretty and works well for nights out. Note: while the 1oz size of this is technically a much better value, that's a ton of highlighter to finish up, and I'm not sure most people could manage it. I definitely encourage you to get the minis instead.
Purchase: Sephora

REVIEW: Make Beauty Custom Finish Effects Matte/Dew

The forum and "Big YouTuber" hype machine doesn't usually get to me. Sure, influencers with a million plus subscribers will sometimes rave about a product that piques my interest, but seeing a cringe-worthy shade range or a bad-for-me ingredients list almost always turns me away.

I can't say the same for bloggers, Instagrammers, and smaller creators I follow. Since they're less likely to be swayed by sponsorships and more likely to use under the radar products that fit my aesthetic, I'm prone to lusting after their favorite products. And when The Critical Babe kept posting about this Make Beauty product that promises both a mattifying cream and a highlighting cream, I was sold. The ability to customize my look? Oooooh!

Make Beauty Custom Finish Effects retails for $27. It arrives in a shiny, plastic black compact with a mirror; both attract fingerprints, obviously, but they're easy to clean and have that sleek, simple look I prefer.

When you open up the compact, you'll see a beige side and a pink side. Because I'm a dipstick used to seeing white or off-white cream highlighters and mattifiers, I initially thought they'd sent me a blush-and-bronzer combo by accident. Double check the instructions, though, and you'll see that they recommend applying the "peach formula to areas in need of shine control or matte finish, and the pink formula to areas in where you want moisture or a dewy finish."

It's actually smart to make the two sides completely different colors in the pan so you don't mix them up. Rest assured, they apply clear. As far as textures go, the matte side has a very thin, silicone-y feel to it, while the pink side feels stickier.

Let's talk about the claims. For starters, Make states that this product "will not clog pores" and is "hypoallergenic." Both of these are marketing phrases that don't actually mean much. A look at the ingredients list shows a number of components that some people find irritating or clogging, such as talc, ethylhexyl palmitate, and fragrance on the matte side, while the dew side contains various oils, waxes, and more fragrance. I didn't have any issues with breakouts or clogging, but it's worth noting.

Make also claims that this product can be used on top of foundation and powder. I found this to be partially true. In the above before-and-after photo, you can definitely see that the dewy side (applied to my cheeks) gives a subtle, slightly wet glow. It's somewhat similar to my beloved Glossier Haloscope, though I had to apply more of the Make product to get this look.

The matte side, though, didn't work quite as well. If you click on the above photo and look at my nose, you'll see that it gave me a bit of a "polka dot pores" look. This softened a little throughout the day, but it still didn't "reduce the appearance of lines and pores" like Make claimed it would, and it made my nose look a bit patchy and dry. I also applied the matte cream to my eyelids, and while it looked nice for the first hour, it quickly creased all over my lids and "grabbed" flakes from my mascara.

These creams also have dramatically different staying power. The dew effect lasted pretty much all day, while the matte effect lasted only a few hours on me, and I say that as somebody with fairly dry skin. In fact, my nose didn't just look shiny after a couple of hours, it looked shinier than usual. I could apply more of the matte side to tamp down the shine, but honestly, I'd have been better off just leaving my nose Make Beauty free.

I think the Make Beauty Custom Finish Effects creams work a little better on foundation-less skin. On this day, I went to work with the matte cream on my nose and the dewy cream on my cheeks. With no foundation to butcher, the matte side actually looks okay, but again, it became a grease slick by the time I was done teaching. The dewy cream is barely-there, natural, and slightly glowy.

So I only like half of this product, and that officially makes it a bust for me. But hey, that half is pretty damn nice. If Make Beauty sells it separately and they come out with a few more products that interest me, I might consider investing. You can never have enough dewy, glossy skin.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Make Beauty products are now available on Amazon.

The Hype Machine: Yves Saint Laurent Touche Eclat Radiance Perfecting Pen

 The Hype Machine is a series that takes a critical look at well-loved, cult classic, appears-in-every-other-Instagram-photo products and asks: are they worth the hype?

Few things are as iconic and infamously luxe as this highlighting pen, the Yves Saint Laurent Touche Eclat Radiance Perfecting Pen. Despite being such an enduring and immediately recognizable product, a lot of people seem to have issues figuring out what to do with this pen; it doesn't provide enough coverage to mask dark circles, nor is it as reflective as most modern highlighters. I was a bit stuck when I first tried it, too, mostly because it is considered an untouchable classic and I was afraid of messing it up. Now that I've fiddled with it for a few weeks, I think I'm ready to give you my thoughts.

First, let's clarify what this isn't: it's not a concealer. It's too sheer to cover up the darkness under your eyes, and it's too shiny to hide a blemish. It's also not a glittery, sparkly, or even dewy product; it's got more of a natural, healthy-skin like satin glow. That said, I've used the blog's "concealer" and "highlighter" labels because they best represent where you use this product and the effect it gives. Quote the Sephora summary, it "brightens, smooths, and perfects your complexion...highlight(s) your best features without any shimmer or glitter." For $42 a pen, it had better be damn good at perfecting stuff.

I've been using the shade #2 on the tops of my cheekbones, in the hollows of my eye, and under my brows. As you can see here, it blends out seamlessly and gives a lovely bit of glow and dimension. Because it's very sheer, it won't make your blush look muddy or look too stark around your eyes. The actual texture of the Touche Eclat pen is very thin and smooth, so it's comfortable on the skin and even blends well over fine lines. It works well with other products; obviously, it mixes with my undereye concealer, but I've also been tapping my Glossier Haloscope on top of it on my cheeks, and the combination is dewy and lovely.

That sounds majestic and perfect and glorious, but let's be honest here: is this a look that's so hard to get with other products? Nah. I can get a similar seamless glow from MAC Strobe Cream and equally effective color correction from the Maybelline Dream Lumi Pen; if I want something that adds a little glow and some color under my brows, I can mix a dash of concealer with my Strobe Cream. This is also a typical YSL product insofar as it reeks of perfume.

It's a lovely brightener that I've really enjoyed and will likely finish. I'd also have no qualms recommending it to other people who want this sort of effect. Am I going to repurchase it, though? Eh, I dunno. I don't think it's entirely necessarily, especially at that $42 price point. Still, I can see why it's been so beloved for decades.

BOTTOM LINE: This is an overhyped, but relatively versatile highlighting pen that's invisible on the skin, so it's no wonder it became a cult classic. That said, if you've got an undereye brightener and a natural highlighter you already like, you don't have to rush out and buy this $42 pen.

The Hype Machine is a series that represents my experiences and opinions. It is not meant to be a personal attack on a specific company, product, or consumer. I always recommend that you try products for yourself and see how they work for you. Everybody is unique, after all!

REVIEW: Milk Makeup Cheek Products

I rip on makeup brands and products in general because I am, admittedly, a crotchety old bitch. But I must confess that I'm rougher on Milk Makeup. I'd blame it on their trying-too-hard-to-be-quirky "tutorials" featuring naturally gorgeous hipsters and obnoxious editing techniques if there weren't more practical concerns. Namely, a lot of their products are housed in packaging that's more funky than functional, and while I'm a fan of "getting your money's worth," I know I'm not the only person who thinks an ounce of cream blush is absurd. Just half the amount of product and drop the price a little! Geez.

Cranking aside, I'm clearly a hypocrite, because I keep trying their stuff. Not only have they made a few products that are genuinely good, like the Gel Brow pencil I wore for these review photos, but they also create the sorts of quick-and-easy cream and liquid formulas I'm attracted to. That's why I decided to get sample sizes of their Lip + Cheek in Perk and their original highlighter in Lit. Thanks, eBay!

The full sizes of these babies contain a full ounce of product and retail for $24. While you're definitely getting your money's worth, I repeat that you're probably never going to finish a full ounce of cheek product, even if you use it every day for a year. The minis are 0.1 ounces each (so a tenth of a full size) and currently are only available in subscription boxes or kits like this one. I wish Milk would sell the minis separately; I think they'd go like gangbusters. The packaging is simple plastic twist-up tubes with clear lids that snap on tightly.

  Both of these products contain a host of potential cloggers, including (but not limited to) ethylhexyl palmitate, castor oil, coconut oil, hydrogenated vegetable oil, and some citrus oils and waxes. They're also fragranced, the highlighter with an actual perfume and the lip and cheek product with those citrus oils. Honestly, I'd recommend that those with acne-prone or sensitive skin give these a hard pass, even if you plan on patch testing.

The formulas for these sticks are not quite as creamy as many other cream-based cheek products; in fact, I find they're a little tacky and can feel rubbery during application. With that said, they glide across the skin with relative ease and are easy to blend out with a finger or a brush. I noticed that these did make my foundation move a bit if I applied too much pressure or swept them back and forth, so I just drag them across on my cheeks in a C-shape and blend out with my finger. They don't dry down completely, either, although it's nothing too extreme; your hair won't get stuck on your cheeks, for example.

While both of these products look okay on me, they have their issues. Lit is a bit more metallic and shimmery than I would like, but it does provide a lot of glow and reflect light very well. However, it seems to emphasize texture on my face. You can see this in the above photo: the rest of my face looks weirdly smooth compared to the spots where I've applied the highlighter. Perk isn't quite as pigmented as I expected it to be, and I had to apply two layers to get it to show up in real life and on camera. I can't imagine this shade showing up on anybody with medium to dark skin. I didn't care for it on my lips, either, because it had a vague "filmy" texture and didn't last long.

Here are the Milk products compared to two of my staples, the Glossier Haloscope in Quartz and the Becca Beach Tint in Dragonfruit. (The picture lies: this shade is Dragonfruit, not Lychee.) Quartz is lighter and more "natural" than Lit, with no real obvious shimmer. Dragonfruit is brighter than Perk, and it has a satin finish. I'd say these two alternatives are frankly superior to the Milk products, although I must admit that some will find Haloscope's persistent stickiness less appealing.

I'm glad I got the minis of these products for roughly $5 each, because they're small enough that I can finish them relatively quickly. Once they're gone, I won't repurchase them. They're just really "meh," and there's much better stuff available on the market.

RATING: 3 out of 5

You can purchase these products at Milk Makeup's website.

REVIEW: Glossier Haloscope

If you follow me on social media, you might know that I've tasked Glossier with creating two items: a lash stain that's actually effective without also being a pain in the ass to use and a highlighter. Hence, I was really excited when Glossier released their newest product, the Haloscope highlighter. Supposedly dropped suddenly like a Beyonce album, rumored to have been released earlier than planned because a few websites leaked the product deets, Haloscope is a cream stick highlighter that comes in a pale champagne gold shade (Quartz) and a more coppery gold color (Topaz). Being the ghostly pale human being that I am, I just went with Quartz for this review.

Before I even received this product, I decided to compare it to the RMS Living Luminizer. Full disclosure: the Living Luminizer is the one and only product I've ever regretted purging. But I've noticed that some of Glossier's products, like the Stretch Concealer, and their general beauty philosophy seem very similar to the RMS line. Here are the ingredients lists for the two products:

GLOSSIER HALOSCOPE IN QUARTZ:
Ricinus Communis (Castor) Seed Oil, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil, Beeswax, Mica, Silica, Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis (Sweet Almond) Oil, Tocopheryl Acetate, Nylon-12, Quartz, Sodium Hyaluronate,Tin Oxide, Iron Oxides (CI 77491, CI 77492, CI 77499), Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Carmine (CI 75470)

RMS LIVING LUMINIZER:
*Ricinus Communis (Castor) Seed Oil, *Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil, *Cera Alba (Beeswax), Tocopherol (non-GMO), *Rosmarinus officinalis (Rosemary) Extract, and may contain [+/- Titanium Dioxide CI77891, Mica CI 77019]

So basically, Haloscope and Living Luminizer aren't dupes, but they're pretty damn similar. If you like one, there's a good chance you'll like the other.

Also, it's worth noting that a lot of the folks at Glossier seem to be in to the "new age" healing and vibes stuff that's becoming more popular, and that supposedly influenced their decision to use quartz. I think that's a line of crap and they used the ingredient because it looks pretty and sounds cool, but I'm a Big Mean Skeptic. Please correct me if I'm just being a cynical bitch. (PS: Don't even get me started on the crystal dildo in that post.)

Now, a lot of people, including me, gave Glossier some shit for how much the Generation G lipsticks cost per ounce. So let's do some price comparisons with similar stick highlighters.

Glossier Haloscope - 0.194oz, $22

CoverFX Click Highlighter - 0.17oz, $18

Clinique Chubby Stick Sculpting Highlighter - 0.21oz, $22

NARS Multiple - 0.5oz, $39

Josie Maran Argan Enlightenment Illuminizing Wand - 0.36oz, $28

Milk Makeup Highlighter - 1oz, $24

The Milk Makeup offering is clearly a crazy huge deal, but beyond that, it looks like Haloscope is par for the course as far as cost per ounce goes. It's not the cheapest, it's not the most expensive.

Glossier's packaging seems to be very polarizing. I personally love plastic packaging because it tends to be shatter-resistant and I'm VERY clumsy. Also, unlike the Generation G lipstick packaging, this all feels like it was chosen to keep the product functional. You can twist the product all the way up and retract it completely, there's plenty of extra space in the cap (so no smooshing your stick!), and the cap stays on in your bag. Furthermore, Haloscope is one of those rare products that really is best applied straight from the stick--but more on that in a moment.

The actual highlighter has an interesting, but not entirely unique, design: there's mica and ground quartz in the colored outer ring, and the center ring is a mixture of oils (namely castor, sweet almond, and coconut). The idea is to give you a dewy glow with refined shimmer.

It's a great idea, but it does have a few glaring consequences. First, if you're sensitive to any of those oils, this will be an instant no-go. Contrary to current hype, a lot of people find that coconut oil and its derivatives break them out. Some people are also highly allergic to it. If you aren't sure, PLEASE patch test Haloscope before you go hog wild with it!

Second, the oil might break down your foundation, which is not surprising when you consider that a lot of people use coconut oil as a makeup remover. I haven't had a problem with this over my usual sheer foundations, including Glossier's Perfecting Skin Tint. (And let's be honest: those are the foundations Glossier expects their target customer to wear.) Still, I wanted to make note of it.

Third, the numerous oils in the product mean it never totally sets and can stick in your brush bristles or soak all the way in to your sponge. In other words, you should use your fingers to blend this. As I said earlier in this post, this highlighter applies best if you swipe the tube across your face, then pat out the product with your fingers. (You can certainly rub your fingers on to the stick and go from there, but I've found the straight-from-the-tube method to be the quickest and easiest.) Weirdly enough, I find that this "pulls" on my cheeks when I first start dragging it, but then it slides around fine...it's like it needs to hit the warmth of your skin to get truly soft and mobile. Blending it out is easy as sin, though.

I'm honestly in love with the fact that this gets me glowy in less than 30 seconds. And while I keep comparing Haloscope to the RMS Living Luminizer, I...honestly think this product is a bit better. It gives a similar natural glow without the same amount of visible glitter, even in macro shots (see above), and the packaging is much more portable. There, I said it! It's out!

The sticky texture of this product also seems to give it pretty good staying power, at least on my dry skin. If I want more glow, I can easily dab on more product and layer it up; it'll look dewy and shiny without being robo-metallic or overtly sparkly.

Here is the Glossier product compared to my two staple highlighters, MAC Strobe Cream and Becca's Shimmering Skin Perfector liquid in Pearl. As you can hopefully see, Pearl is straight white, Strobe Cream is very sheer but has a slight pinky tinge, and the Glossier is a super-pale gold. I can see this being flattering on a decent range of skintones, though of course, people with darker skin will probably want to bump up to the Topaz shade.

I almost gave Glossier Haloscope a 4 out of 5, but then I stopped myself. Why was I reacting this way? Yes, the marketing is a bit of a turn off, but it's also relatively effective. Sure, this will not work on people with allergies to the ingredients, but that's kind of how beauty products work--if your skin doesn't like one of the ingredients, it's going to react poorly. And yeah, it'll probably be a bit of a mess on very oily skin...but have I ever found a product that was truly universal?

Overall, this is a solid product that I somewhat grudgingly admit I'm loving. When I put it on, I can't stop staring at my skin in mirrors and tilting my face toward the light to see how my cheeks glow. That's what a good highlighter is supposed to do.

RATING: 5 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

Try This: Tint Your Highlighter

Being on a low buy or a no buy can be very tough, especially when you have direct deposit set up. The money hits your account, a Valentine's Day sale springs to your attention, and all you can think is, "Yeah, I have $50 extra to spend right now." This happened to me this past week with a product that has been tempting me for about a year now, the Becca Beach Tint Shimmer Souffles. These little pots swatch beautifully and look amazing in others bloggers' photographs; they look like the most perfect, glowy blush-highlighter hybrids.

I managed to resist by reminding myself that I have tons of products already, most of them are liquids and creams (which mix easily), and I used to play Makeup Mixologist on the back of my hand all the time. So let's just go back to my roots and save $27!

Daylight on left, flash on right.

Here are two of the combinations I really fell in love with. The first is equal parts MAC Strobe Cream and Becca Beach Tint in Dragonfruit; it creates a glowing coral shade that looks--surprise surprise--a lot like the swatches I've seen of Becca's Lychee/Opal mix, just less golden. If you wanted to create more of a soft pink highlighter, you could easily add a far smaller amount of the Beach Tint to your white highlighter for that effect.

I also wanted to see if I could add a smaller amount of highlighter to a cream blush to make it softer and more dewy. The BBIA Downy Cheek blushes are already quite creamy, but if you want a more pastel shade with even more glow, you can add a dab of MAC Strobe Cream, blend the two, and get the effect.

If you really want to add a powder to a highlighter and see the results, you can, but one of the products should still be a cream or liquid, and loose powders are obviously easier to use. Also, you don't have to use flat white highlighters; other shades can work.

Here's an example using Kismet Cosmetics Toasty highlighter (top left) mixed with MAC Jardin Aires pigment (top right--squint to see it). Mixing the two makes the highlighter more golden and reflective. The bottom left shows the mixture swatched heavily, which I think would make a gorgeous eye color, and the bottom right shows the mixture sheered out, which is a slightly lighter, more glowing, and more golden cheek or brow highlight than Toasty is on its own.

Obviously, you can still apply your blush, then top it with a bit of highlighter. That's a stand-by routine that I'll probably use for most of my makeup wearing days. But mixing the two products together, than applying, really can give you a different effect and provide you with a wider range of colors to choose from. As an added bonus, if you really enjoy a mixture you make, you can pre-mix it and save it in an airtight container from a store like TKBTrading.com.

REVIEW: Burberry Fresh Glow Luminous Fluid Base

Sometimes, you place an order for a new lipstick or a delightful fragrance, and you're just as excited to receive those full-sized products as you are the free samples that come with it. This was how I felt when I placed a Sephora VIB order and added on a deluxe sample of the Burberry Fresh Glow Luminous Fluid Base, a multipurpose primer/highlighter product that's been lauded by incredible artists like Wendy Rowe. In fact, I was so enthralled by the rave reviews from fellow dry-skinned folks that I almost purchased a full bottle a few months back!

Let's talk about that full bottle for the moment. While this sample was free, the full bottle is definitely not; in fact, it's a little pricey: $48 for 1 oz of product. To be fair, this is on par with many high-end foundations and you do get a full ounce, but it's still a luxury product. The packaging is suitably beautiful AND functional, with a see-through container so you can see how much you've used and a pump to keep it all sanitary. This product comes in two shades: the one I have, 01 Nude Radiance, and a darker, warmer shade, 02 Golden Radiance.

Be prepared for lots of shots of my gooey nostrils. Sorry.

Burberry claims that this product can be used multiple ways: it can be used all over your face on bare skin or under foundation to give you a glow, it can be applied like a highlighter, and it can be mixed with other products (like eyeshadow) to sheer them out and amp up their shine. Having heard that this was the primer for dry skin, I decided to test it first as a primer...and if you saw this video, you know I was instantly stymied.

The above macro shot shows why. While MAC Face & Body usually has a slightly glowy finish on me, it looked much drier on top of the Burberry primer. It quickly moved in to the fine lines around my mouth and nose, which is not normal, either. Nor is it common for me to have so much difficulty blending products on top of my foundation. The Burberry primer is also full of micro-shimmer, and while I'll complain about that more later, I want to point out that you can see it through the foundation--look at the two sparkly dots above the corner of my mouth.

The glow on my cheeks is from Becca Shimmering Skin Perfector in Pearl, not Burberry Fresh Glow.

Further back and with flash, it's slightly less dry-looking, but my base is still not as natural and healthy-looking as usual. A few folks on Makeup Alley suggested that the problem may be MAC Face & Body, which can interact oddly with primers and moisturizers due to its unusual formulation, so I tested it with a few other foundations. Nope, same results: it looked just as dry and awful under Buxom Show Some Skin and the NARS Radiant Cream Compact Foundation.

Mixing Fresh Glow with the foundation didn't seem to improve matters. It just made me look a bit less dry, a bit more sparkly, probably because it was evenly mixed with the base, not slightly covered up by it. And I absolutely cannot get behind the idea of wearing it on my bare face with nothing else. Get in the light, it turns to pure sparkle, and that's not what I want people to see.

This photo, take 6 hours after I primed with Burberry Fresh Glow, really shows why I can't get behind this product the way many have. I can count the number of times I have seen my foundation looking this patchy, dry, and disgusting on one hand.Where is the promised glow? The "youthful" luminosity? All I see is something that made me look like a zombie.

Honestly, the only way I was able to get this product to work was as a cheek highlighter. Dabbed lightly over foundation, it was decently pretty and shiny, though still too sparkly for my tastes.

Burberry Flesh Glow 01 Nude Radiance on the left, MAC Strobe Cream on the right.

Beyond the dry dry dryness of it on my skin, the sparkliness of this product is my biggest beef. The product page actually claims that this product will give you "shimmer-free, youthful-looking luminosity." Shimmer-free?! Are you fucking kidding me?! You can see the glitter particles on this as soon as you rub it on your skin! And as the above (painstakingly taken) photos show, there is absolutely fine shimmer in Fresh Glow, which is obvious in direct sunlight.

I took the above photos because I wanted to compare Burberry Fresh Glow to a similar product, MAC Strobe Cream. Both products are meant to be sheer and glowy multipurpose wonders. But between the two, Strobe Cream is the clear winner for me. Somehow, the shimmer in it is more refined--I can wear it, on bare skin and in direct sunlight, without looking like a disco ball--and the cream texture actually adds a bit of moisture to the skin. I have long promoted this product as a dual cheek highlighter and all-over skin enhancer, and the photos speak for themselves. To add insult to injury, a 1 ounce tube of Strobe Cream is $10, almost 1/5 the price of the Burberry Fresh Glow.

I wanted to love this product. I tried hard to love this product. Honestly, writing this review is a bit scary for me, because I know so many people truly adore and depend on this stuff. But for me, it was an absolute failure. Its only use is as a cheek highlighter, and even then, there are other products that are vastly superior.

1 out of 5

Burberry Fresh Glow is available at Sephora.

Sample Rundown #8 + Duping a Highlighter? Maybe?

We're back for 2016, and we're back with another edition of Sample Rundown! This particular rundown is going to feature a mixture of Korean and western beauty, makeup and skincare, "this is pretty sweet shit" and "why the Hell would you pay that much for this nonsense?" Also, there will be a "is this a dupe?" swatch comparison at the end, because this is my blog and I do what I want. ONWARD!

Skinfood Royal Honey Eye Cream -- This is a creamy, smooth eye cream with a bit of a gel texture. It provides light moisture and a hint of glow, and the formula feels weightless under the eyes, so it should work well for people with normal, slightly dry, or slightly oily skin who want a basic eye cream. With that said, it's also a tad sticky, so I wouldn't recommend it for under makeup. This made me break out, unfortunately, but I really did like the texture and how a little goes a long way. Purchase directly from a reputable Korean seller, like RoseRoseShop.com, unless you want to deal with major price gouging.

Clarins Super Restorative Night Cream -- Sweet God, can you believe that this things costs over $100 retail?! This cream feels thick and rich on your fingers, but when you actually rub it in to your skin, it provides only moderate hydration. It's also lacking in the kind of active ingredients and antioxidants that would make the price seem reasonable; in fact, the formula is extremely basic. Overpriced and did little for my dry skin.

 Wearing the Etude House Fresh Cherry Tint and ELF Shimmering Facial Whip.

Etude House Fresh Cherry Tint in PK001 Pink -- A soft, semi-sheer lip tint that applies smoothly and easily. Out the tube (packet?), this product looks and smells like strawberry milk. It's less pastel on the lips, however, and is very wearable. Just make sure you don't smear your lips together for a good minute, or it'll all settle in the center of your mouth. I'm torn on this one: I like how it looks on the lips and how easy it is to apply, but it's a smidge drying and it doesn't last as long as other stains. Maybe I'll grab a full tube if I can get it for the right price.

Too Cool For School Pumpkin Sleeping Pack -- Korean sleeping packs come in a range of formulas, but in my experience, most are like a moisturizer and a mask having a baby. The popular TCFS Pumpkin Sleeping Pack doesn't smell a thing like pumpkins--it actually has a bit of a sweet, floral fragrance--but it does have a light, smooth texture and a clear color going for it; this means it won't feel heavy or look creepy on your face. I wear a thin layer of this over most of my face (I skip my nose), let it sink in for 10 minutes, then go to sleep. The next day, I wake up and my skin is slightly more moisturized and quite soft. Makeup applies a bit better after I use this as well. The results are not dramatic, though, so I think I'll use up my sample sachets before deciding whether or not I want a full size.

Guerlain Maxi Lash So Volume! mascara -- Most high-end mascaras strike me as "meh" for the price, and this one is no different. While it claims to be a volumizing mascara, I found that it gave me only a little volume. I definitely got a lot of length from it, though, which may be due to the rubberized wand bristles. It was easy to remove at the end of the night, which is a bonus, but it flaked a good bit throughout the day. Definitely not worth purchasing a full size, in my opinion.

Now I want to talk about a supposed dupe that's been mentioned in the rumor mill! A few people mentioned that the ELF Shimmering Facial Whip in Spotlight is a dupe for the Becca Shimmering Skin Perfector in Pearl, and one of my acquaintances mentioned that Spotlight replaced their MAC Cream Color Base in Luna. I own all three products, so I figured I'd test them out and do some swatching.

The above swatches are Becca on the left, ELF in the middle, MAC on the right. As you can hopefully see, Luna has a more opaque white base than the other two, and Pearl has the most refined Shimmer. Spotlight will certainly give you a glow--see the full face picture above--but I would not say it's comparable to these two at all. It's heavily fragranced, a bit difficult to blend out, and nowhere near as adjustable.

Is it a bad highlighter? No, especially not for $1. But I would never consider it a dupe.