REVIEW: Glossier Lash Slick

Like many people, I've been waiting for Glossier to release the barely-there mascara of my dreams. Given that they registered a trademark for Lash Slick quite a while ago, I expected it to release much sooner. The company insists that it took so long because they went through 248 formulations before settling on this fiber mascara version; that might be true, but holding off was also savvy marketing that ensured consumers would be ecstatic when a mascara inevitably dropped. Now Glossier can post advertisements rhapsodizing that your eye makeup is "finally complete."

Lash Slick is described as "the perfect everyday mascara." It promises to curl, lengthen, and define your lashes with a smudge-proof, flake-free fiber formula that's water-resistant, all for the reasonable price of $16 a tube. Founder Emily Weiss said that she basically wanted to remake the Kevyn Aucoin tubing mascara without "the tubes" (girl, what?), but really, this reminds me of Japanese mascaras like Kiss Me Heroine Make Long and Curl. Fibers are designed to cling to the tips of your lashes and provide the fluttery, feathery, lengthened look so favored in Japan; the intent seems to be the same with Lash Slick, which will supposedly give you a "lash extension effect."

To give you that effect, Glossier chose a rubber wand with stubby bristles that comb through the lashes and deposit the tiniest amount of product at a time. Frankly, I hate most rubber bristle wands because they tend to be so pokey and never give me the effect I want. This one doesn't bother me, though, in large part because the bristles aren't sharp at all. Also, they put a damn good stopper in the tube; it pulls off every bit of excess product barring the teeniest dab on the tip. I hate having to spend 30 seconds wiping my wand off on the lip of the tube, so I appreciate a good stopper.

My mom also likes being able to go straight from the tube to her lashes, but beyond that, we have rather different preferences for our lashes. My mom has very short and straight lashes that are decently thick. Because she likes a quick, barely-there makeup look, she usually goes for a defining mascara in a brown-black shade that's easy to remove. My lashes are the complete opposite: long and curly yet fine. Hence, I tend to go for a rich, creamy formula that will plump them up and provide tons of volume. I like an easy-to-remove mascara, but I'm more concerned with flaking and smudging, which is something almost every mascara does on me. That's a lot to take in, I know, so here's a handy dandy Me vs. Mom chart:

Why do I mention my mom? Well, friends, she also wanted a tube of Glossier Lash Slick. And since I love overly detailed reviews almost as much as my mother, I had to get her some and ask her to test it, too.

The above photos show my lashes before and after two layers of Glossier Lash Slick; I apply by wiggling the wand at the roots of my lashes, then working my way up. The formula is very thin, but it's not watery or messy, so I don't make quite as much of a mess on my lids during application. As you can see, Lash Slick definitely makes a difference, providing a bit of length and a rich black color. I don't think you get actual volume from this mascara, per se, but if you press the wand in to the roots like I did, it does give the illusion of slightly thicker lashes.

This seemed to hold my curl just fine as well, but to be fair, my lashes hold their curl most of the time. (Is that because the hair on my head is curly? Can anyone with a better grasp on genetics weigh in there?)

To further test Lash Slick, I did something I normally avoid: I put mascara on my lower lashes. Guys, I have very dark undereyes--see the above concealer-free photo for proof. And everything freaking smears on me! The last thing I want to do is draw attention to the area or make it darker. But I know most people don't have those hang ups, so I gave it a shot, and it actually looks pretty damn good. I'm too lazy to do it on the regular, but if I want a bottom lash mascara, I'll reach for Lash Slick now.

 Holy macro fine lines, Batman!

My initial application looked a bit more "made up" and obvious than what I've come to expect from Glossier products. So the next time I applied it, I did just one coat. As you can see in the photo above, this will give you more of a "tinted lash" sort of effect. You get slightly less length and "oomph" in exchange for a more defined, natural look. Overall, two coats works well, but I think I prefer this one coat look.

Now, my eyes are deep set, and macro shots make the clear tips of my naked lashes more visible than they really are. Photos shot from beneath my eye do a slightly better job of demonstrating the effect, as you can see how close my lashes are to my brows. So here's one of those:

Broadly speaking, I'm not getting my usual look here: there's some length and decent definition, but very little volume. That said, it's a look I like, especially for light makeup days, and I appreciate that I can slap this mascara on in less than a minute.

My mom also did one coat of this mascara, but unlike me, she avoids wiggling the wand in to the roots of her lashes and instead just swipes the brush up as quickly as she can. She still got darker, more defined, slightly lengthened lashes, they just don't look any thicker. Again, this isn't really a volumizing mascara, so I'm not shocked.

While my mom liked that Lash Slick wasn't clumpy or goopy, she was sad to see that they didn't release a dark brown shade. That's probably my biggest critique of Lash Slick as well; I never wear brown mascara, but a lot of my blonde friends prefer it over stark black. She also told me that while it didn't make her lashes droop, it didn't make her curl last longer than it normally does. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want a mascara that will hold your curl, you'll probably want something waterproof, and/or you should check out the Japanese mascara market.

Both my mother and I were impressed by the wear of this mascara. Everything seems to flake and smudge on my watery eyes, and technically speaking, Glossier Lash Slick wasn't all that different. Around the 8 hour mark, I noticed some flakes. In comparison to the usual giant black dots I get, however, these were minute, barely-there flakes and the occasional stray fiber; I boxed them in in the above photo so you could see them better, and you'll still probably have to enlarge the picture. These flakes were easy to remove with a swipe of a brush or a finger. I got even less flaking when I stuck to one coat. I've yet to experience any smudging, and that's pretty impressive given how humid it is in Pennsylvania right now.

So did I get zero flaking or smudging? No. But I'd say this is about as little as I'll ever see with lashes and eyes like mine.

Last, but most certainly not least, there's the removal. Because I deal with black specks on my cheeks and gray smears around my eyes so much, I usually favor waterproof formulas, since their waxier base tends to give them a longer wear time. As a result, I often have to soak my eyes with a bit of oil to remove all of my mascara, which has never really bothered me. I find my skincare routine relaxing. My mom, by contrast, considers skincare a tedious but necessary part of good grooming akin to putting on deodorant. The faster she can get her makeup off at the end of the night, the more she likes it.

Glossier promises that you can remove Lash Slick with warm water, and that held true for us. I tested both a Makeup Eraser and micellar water on this, and they removed the mascara entirely with minimal tugging. My mother just used her usual Cerave face wash with some warm water, spending all of five seconds rubbing at her moistened lashes, and again, it came off easily.

My verdict: Lash Slick was worth the wait. It's a solid mascara that does what it says on the tube: lengthens, defines, doesn't make a mess, and comes off easily. If that's the look you're going for, then Lash Slick could be the mascara for you.

RATING: 5 out of 5

Glossier products are available at their website. If you would like to support small beauty bloggers, consider using their Glossier affiliate link for your first purchase; the affiliate link I used here is from Auxiliary Beauty.

I purchased these two tubes of Glossier Lash Slick using store credit earned via affiliate link purchases. I am not a Glossier Rep and my reviews are always honest.

REVIEW: Besame Delicate Rouge and Cream Rouge

When Besame offered to send me some of their blushes, I was expecting just one of the powders and maybe a pot of their Cream Rouge. Imagine my utter shock when they sent me both Cream Rouge shades and two of their Delicate Rouge powders. Actually, if you follow me on Instagram, you probably don't have to imagine my reaction; it was pretty obvious on my story:

Despite the excitement of "ERMAGAHD BESAME NOTICED ME" and legitimately gorgeous new products, I really wanted to take my time testing these out. I rarely use powder blushes, so I'm a wee bit out of the loop, and I have such an obsession with cream blushes and Besame that I was worried I wouldn't give this stuff a fair trial. Having fiddled with these for several weeks now, I think I'm ready to give my review.

Let's start with the Cream Rouges, which come in two permanent shades: Crimson, a cool-toned red, and Apricot, a bright orange. (At the time of this post, there's also a limited edition shade from the Snow White collection called With a Smile and a Song, which appears to be a rose shade.) These are packaged in small tins that are relatively easy to open, which is a definite improvement over their previous packaging that featured a lid like a bomb shelter door. The permanent shades retail for $18 and contain 3.5 grams of product.

People often complain that these are "really tiny," but that's a little misguided. For starters, you really can't compare cream and liquid blushes to powder blushes. Creams and liquids tend to have more concentrated color--you need less product to get the same effect. They're also more commonly applied with fingers, or put on the back of the hand to warm them up before using a brush, whereas powder blushes need to be a bit bigger so your brush can dip right in. For this reason, cream blushes will always seem tiny compared to a powder blush. Most importantly, it's the actual amount of product in the container that needs to be considered. In that case, the Besame Cream Rouges still seem quite small, but a cost per gram analysis reveals that they're actually relatively affordable:

 Besame Cream Rouge, $18 for 3.5g = $5.14 per gram
Stila Convertible Color, $25 for 4.25g = $5.88 per gram
RMS Beauty Lip2Cheek, $36 for 4.82g = $7.46 per gram
Makeup Forever HD Blush, $26 for 2.8g = $9.28 per gram

Wearing Besame Cream Rouge in Crimson on my lips and cheeks.

The texture of these blushes actually sort of shocked me at first. While they look very solid in the pan, they warm up quickly under your fingers and take on an almost liquid texture. They have the lightweight texture and natural tint of a stain. You get a lot of color, believe me, but you can still see your skin, which gives it a very natural appearance. I absolutely adore it.

Speaking of the stain-like quality: the Besame Cream Rouges are actually advertised as a lip and cheek product, which made me side eye them at first. I've always said that these dual use products are usually only good for one or the other: if they work for the cheeks, they're too dry for the lips, and if they work for the lips, they're too hard to blend on the cheeks. That's not the case with these; I had no problem using them on my lips and getting a very natural, beautifully flushed color. They're a hair drying on the lips, but it's easily remedied by some balm.

Because the formula is very lightweight but pigmented, you can layer it up. In other words, you can use a little to look naturally rosy, or you can pack the product on and look truly flushed and borderline feverish. If you wanna call back to the days when tuberculosis was considered super sexy, this is the product to do it.

I can only think of two downsides for these blushes. The entirely personal one is that they contain one of my acne triggers, so I can only use them once or twice a week if I want to avoid clogs. Everyone's triggers are different and the ingredients list is actually pretty solid, so I'm not knocking the formula overall. The more general complaint I have is the smell, which reminds me of cherry Chapstick. I just think it cheapens an otherwise luxurious product.

Now for the Delicate Rouge blushes, which are their powders. I have to admit that I tilted my head a little when I saw the shades they sent me: I'm very fair and lean toward the warm side, but they sent me Raspberry (a violet pink) and Sunkissed (a soft, peachy brown). I actually expected them to send me one of the other two shades, Rose or Sweet Pink.

Each of the Delicate Rouges retails for $25. They come in these absolutely beautiful metal tins with screw top lids. (It took me a second to realize they had screw tops, and I kept trying to open them like they were hinged...which is especially embarrassing when you realize the note inside the cardboard box says "please twist to open.") The powder is embossed with a really beautiful flower logo. I actually held off on trying these out because we had so many gloomy days that it was hard to get decent lighting for photographs, and I definitely wanted to photograph that logo.

With 4.5 grams of blush in each pan, these are in the middle of the pack as far as high end blush cost per gram goes:

Urban Decay Afterglow Blush, $26 for 6.8g = $3.82 per gram
Tarte Amazonian Clay Blush, $29 for 5.6g = $5.17 per gram
Besame Delicate Rouge, $25 for 4.5g = $5.55 per gram
Laura Mercier Second Skin Cheek Color, $26 for 3.7g = $7.02 per gram
Surratt Beauty Artistique Blush, $32 for 4g = $8 per gram
Bobbi Brown Blush, $30 for 3.7g = $8.10 per gram

Besame also sent me their Rouge Brush, and I'm damn glad, because I don't actually own a traditional blush brush anymore. The brush is decently fluffy, made from synthetic hairs, and retails for $30. That's a bit steep for me for a blush brush, but it definitely blends products smoothly and feels nice on the skin.

Now, some people like to tap their brush in to powder blushes, and other people prefer to swirl. I definitely recommend that you stick with tapping. For starters, these are decently pigmented and a lot ends up on the brush. I actually had to tap Sunkissed off on my wrist to avoid overbronzing myself. Furthermore, these kick up a lot of powder. The photo above shows what Raspberry looked like after a gentle tap. Don't get me wrong: a lot ends up on the brush. But you'll definitely have a little bit left loose in the pan.

Wearing Raspberry along my cheekbones and Sunkissed...kind of sort of in the hollows of my cheeks. I TRIED, OKAY?

Because Sunkissed is more of a bronze shade, I attempted to do a wee bit of contour with it, which...didn't work. I don't really contour because it heightens my resemblance to a horse, and I definitely didn't do the best job here. It's too warm for me to contour with, anyway, and it's too brown to work as a blush on my skintone. It's a lovely shade, but it's not right for me. Trust and believe that I have several friends not-so-subtly asking if I'm going to hand them this pot of Sunkissed.

I had better luck with Raspberry. While it reads violet in the pan and in my swatch below, it blends out to a muted pink color. (You might get more of the purple tones if you wear a fuller coverage foundation.) I really love that it's matte without looking dry or flat.

With both shades, I blended by tapping the color on to my cheek, then buffing in small circles. This formula blends easily and smoothly over liquid foundation and over powder, though it was a little easier and quicker to get an even finish on powdered skin. 

So they're not the single greatest powder blushes in the world--I might give that distinction to Surratt--but they're definitely nice. I'd have no problem recommending them to most people. The shade range, however, is a disappointment for me.

The above photos are stills from Lisa Eldridge's vintage makeup series. In all three pictures, you can see vintage blushes in bright, saturated colors. I'm wondering why Besame didn't draw inspiration from products like these. I admit that my frustration stems from my love of bright, clean blush colors, but I'm also thinking about deeper skinned people. The existing Delicate Rouge shades have a pastel quality (with the possible exception of Rose), and none of them seems strong enough to show up on dark skin. Something like that bold pink on the bottom, however, would probably look beautiful on dark skin, and that would make the range more accessible.

Lastly, I want to add a quick note on staying power. Both of these formulas lasted for more than 6 hours on my cheeks with very little fading. I have very dry skin, though, so blushes tend to stick to my face regardless of the formulation. I'm not sure how long these would last on very oily skin.

As a whole, I was pleased with the Delicate Rouge and wowed by the Cream Rouge. They're beautifully packaged, well formulated, and a joy to use.

RATINGS:

Cream Rouge: 5 out of 5

Delicate Rouge: 4 out of 5

These blushes were sent to me by Besame. As I made clear to the company, I only write honest reviews. I do not accept financial compensation for my posts.

You can purchase these products on the Besame website.

REVIEW: Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses

If a cream shadow is going to impress my lazy, I-don't-really-wear-eye-makeup self, it's got to give me tons of impact with minimal effort. For years, that's meant relying on the cruelly discontinued Josie Maran Coconut Watercolor Eyeshadows, which look like actual metal on my lids. I never thought I could find anything that could truly compare. Then Lyn posted this swatch and Ulta had its 21 Days of Beauty sale. I was armed with a gift card, friends, and I was desperate for a new cream shadow love.

I ended up buying two of the Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses, which were half off during 21 Days of Beauty but normally retail for $24 each. I decided to buy the blue-brown duochrome Lyn had swatched, Oil Slick, and Unicorn, a newer shade comprised of pastel glitter in a clear base. The pots look tiny to me, but they actually contain 5.5g of product, which is pretty standard. For comparison, a MAC Paint Pot contains 5g of product and a Maybelline Color Tattoo contains a little less than 4g.

The pots are hard plastic. Inside, you'll find a little plastic cover with a tab that covers the shadow; you'll want to hold on to these covers to keep the air out. In fact, you'll want to keep the covers and screw your lids on tightly, since cream eyeshadows dry out quickly in general and I'm told these shrivel up super fast.

I did try to do old fashioned hand swatches of these cream shadows. Unfortunately, while they looked great on Snapchat and Instagram Stories, I couldn't seem to capture a decent still photo. Oil Slick looked flat and Unicorn disappeared completely. What gives?

Well, these aren't really eye glosses, insofar as they don't stay wet on your eyes and give them that "glazed" look. They're actually super sparkly cream shadows; up close and in some photos, you'll see straight up glitter. But the shimmer is refined enough that, from a distance, these actually look glossy.

Since they wouldn't swatch on my hand, let me show you some full face photos to give you a better understanding of what I mean.

On the left, we have two layers of Oil Slick. On the right, we have one layer of Unicorn on top of the Rouge Bunny Rouge eyeshadow in Unforgettable Oriole. (I always use Too Faced Shadow Insurance as well, since my eyelids can get very oily.) In both cases, I used the tiniest amount of product possible and blended it with my fingers. And in both cases, I think the Butter London product is the standout. Look at that shine! Look at that GLITTER! They're even prettier in real life.

Here's an obligatory blurry shot to better demonstrate the glitter in Unicorn:

There are other benefits to this formula beyond the sheer sparkly goodness. It has a very thin, gel-like texture that's weightless on the eyes. The Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses also dry down almost immediately, which means you'll have to work fast, but the upside is that they don't really crease and there's next to no fallout. Unicorn did drop a couple of specks on my face throughout the day, but when it comes to glitter, "a couple of specks" is nothing.

So do the Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses replace the Josie Maran liquid eyeshadows? Technically, no. The Josie Maran product is very metallic, whereas these are very sparkly. But are they absolutely beautiful and highly recommended? Uh, yes! Dummy proof, long lasting, absolutely gorgeous glittery cream shadows? I am ready.

RATING: 5 out of 5

The Butter London Glazen Eye Glosses are available at Ulta.

REVIEW: The Makeup Eraser

When I posted a photo of my recently-used mini Makeup Eraser on Instagram and Snapchat a few days ago, I was a little surprised by how many people commented about how much they love their own full-sized Eraser. Ranging from a local drag queen to a high school friend, they all proclaimed that it was one of their favorite products and a staple in their collection.

I was surprised, you see, because I didn't expect much from this hot pink oddity. Part of that is because I'm deeply committed to removing my makeup with oil, and part of that is because I remember cringing at a friend who spent 5 minutes scrubbing off long-wearing foundation with a rough towel. It turned her face beet red and never fully removed the product, which resulted in some skin problems on her end. "A towel," I have long declared, "cannot remove all of your makeup."

But after re-acquainting myself with "no foundation looks" this past year, I've gotten in to the habit of sometimes wearing a very bare-bones list of products: brow pencil, mascara, concealer where needed, lip balm. And on those days, it feels wasteful and excessive to soak two Shiseido cottons in baby oil and run through my usual makeup removal routine. So when I noticed a mini Makeup Eraser in a $17 Sephora favorites kit that included several other items I was interested in, I decided to give it a shot.

The full-sized Makeup Eraser retails for $20 at Sephora. It's made of polyester and, as per the included care instructions, can be washed with warm water and tumble dried, not unlike a lot of other face cloths. (In fact, they point out that you should wash this before your first use.) I've washed mine several times, just tossing it in with whatever non-delicates I had going, and have not had any problems with the the dye running or the texture changing.

Speaking of texture! Each side has a different feel: one has shorter, terry-cloth-esque nubbins made to remove your makeup, the other has longer and softer fibers that apparently exfoliate. I dunno, the exfoliating side doesn't do anything for me, but I could be too used to chemical exfoliants at this point to notice a difference.

The mini Makeup Eraser I'm testing is of the same quality as the full-size, it's just smaller. I recorded the measurements as 2.5" wide and 7" long; I also compared it to a standard-size novel for my fellow visual learners. The full-size cloth is 7" wide and 16" long, which is comparable to the average hand towel. The Sephora page for the set this came in is loaded with complaints about how "tiny" this is, but frankly, I think that's silly. First, they outright state that the kit comes with a mini Makeup Eraser. Come on! Second, this smaller size is just right for one use, which is roughly how often I will use it per week. Third, the mini seems more suited to travel; I would gladly take this with me for a weekend trip.

The benefit of the full-size cloth, apparently, is that you can use one section at a time, so you get more uses out of the towel before you have to wash it. I'm a neat freak, though, so I would have to wash it after every use, even if I only used one corner. If you don't have that problem, though, then you should be able to get 2-3 removals out of your full-sized Makeup Eraser before you toss it in the washer. The company promises that the towel will last for a thousand washes, so we should be in the clear regardless.

Now, again, I would never feel comfortable relying on this to remove a full face of makeup. That's a very personal quirk: I like knowing that all of my foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, etc. is off of my face before I even touch my cleanser, and an oil-based remover gives me that safety net. Instead, I tested this product on one of my lazy days. On the left, you can see the makeup I was wearing on this particular day: Colourpop brow pencil, non-waterproof MAC In Extreme Dimension mascara, Kat Von D Lock-It concealer under my eyes and on a few spots, and some Glossier Balm Dot Com. As per the instructions, I soaked half of the Makeup Eraser in lukewarm water and very gently rubbed it around my eye area.

The picture on the right shows the result on the left-hand side of my face (the eye without the freckle): it removed the products easily. I did have to go back over the mascara with a back-and-forth motion a couple of times, but I was still able to get it off very quickly without roughing up my skin. (The surface redness you see on my nose and cheeks in the "after" picture is from me feeling warm; I didn't rub the Makeup Eraser on that area at all.)

Here's what my Makeup Eraser looked like after I removed everything. I'm gross, so the sight of that makeup satisfies some dark part of my soul. I will also note that my skin felt very normal afterward; it was not rough, red, or oily.

Of course, I got in the shower afterward and followed up with my usual cleanser. Remember that this product is a makeup remover, not a cleanser; it will not clean your face.

Now, the aforementioned makeup I wore was very light, and the Makeup Eraser's Sephora page promises it can do more: "Remove smear-proof, water-proof makeup and mascara." Hence, I decided to test it on a couple of very tenacious products, the Kat Von D Tattoo Liner in Trooper and a Lime Crime Velvetine. I applied some of each product to the back of my hand and let it sit until it was totally dry. Then I attempted to remove it with the Makeup Eraser.

As you can see on the right, I was able to remove a good bit of the product. However, it doesn't break these products down as efficiently as an oil cleanser would. Also, I had to rub very hard and for a good 30 seconds to completely remove these products, which doesn't sit well with me personally.

Initially, I intended to rate this a 4 out of 5 because it does not remove waterproof makeup without a decent amount of scrubbing. I realized, though, that that is a relatively minor complaint given how well it works on more "basic" makeup. Also, not everybody is as adverse to scrubbing as I am. Overall, the Makeup Eraser is easy to use, a breeze to clean, and a relatively affordable way to cut down on waste. While I hesitate to recommend it as a go-to makeup removal option for those who wear a lot of makeup on the regular, I have no qualms saying it is a solid product for the average user.

RATING: 5 out of 5

REVIEW: Besame Mini Lipstick Set

As a casual fan of classic cinema and vintage makeup, I've long lusted after the Besame product range. I don't need any more cream blushes and I don't wear loose powder, but the beautiful tins and historically accurate shades of their cream rouges and brightening powders make me question my resolve. And of course, there's the lipstick range, loaded with replicas of vintage shades in some of the prettiest packaging on the market.

Of course, it's more than just the packaging. Even people who aren't in to ye olde fashioned face paint have said that Besame makes well-formulated products. In fact, I began noticing posts on makeup forums stating that the writer had tested a Besame product (usually the lipstick matchbooks) on a whim and ended up discovering their new favorite red. So when I saw this reasonably priced set of Besame mini lipsticks on Sephora, I knew the stars had aligned.

The Besame Mini Lipstick Set is $25. Each mini lipstick contains one gram of product, so the set contains a total of 5g of lipstick; a full-size tube will run you $22 for 3.4g, so you're certainly getting value for your money there.

 Unfortunately, while the tubes are pretty, they're plastic. They're also incredibly tiny, even by mini lipstick standards. They're so tiny, in fact, that the labels on the bottoms can only fit the lipstick year (explained down below), not the full name. I mentioned on Snapchat that they reminded me a little of children's makeup. That said, it's not a terrible presentation as far as minis go, and the little sliders on these make my day. I'm pretty sure the swivel tube was patented in the mid-1920s, and most of Besames lipsticks are based off of shades from the 1930s onward, but...I really wish that slider was on the full-size tubes, too. It's a rare case of something old-fashioned yet functional.

Natural light on the top, flash on the bottom.

Speaking of the shades! The five shades in this set are, from left to right: 1930 Noir Red (extremely dark plummy red), 1935 Cherry Red (pin-up blue-based shade), 1946 Red Velvet (kind of neutral deep red), 1969 Dusty Rose (mauve), and 1970 Chocolate Kiss (brown with hints of terracotta). All of the shades are replicas of vintage shades from the listed years. The satin finish is classic as well. (As Besame points out on their site, older lipstick formulas were usually full of waxes and oils, so they were not uber matte.)

Most of Besame's lipsticks are reds, since that was the color of choice for quite a few decades, so I'm not shocked that you get three in this kit. I am a little stunned that this selection reads so cool-toned, though, with the obvious exception of Chocolate Kiss. I would think you'd replace either Cherry Red or Red Velvet with something much warmer, like 1931 Carmine, for more balance.

I did like some of these shades on me more than others. I figured Red Velvet and Cherry Red were going to be winners from the start, but I was actually shocked by how much I liked Chocolate Kiss as well. I think it's the slight reddish undertones that seem to pop out against my skin that make it more wearable for me. Dusty Rose reads plum on me because I'm so fair--on most people, it'll likely look more mauve. The disappointment of the bunch, for me, was Noir Red, which is so shockingly dark against my skintone it almost appears black in person. I didn't like it on me and neither did my family. That said, I'm glad they included a shade that can be vampy for deeper skintones.

I wasn't sure if I'd like the chiseled shape of these lipsticks at first, but it ended up being an asset. You can use the flat side to fill in the majority of your mouth, then refine your lip line with the thin tip. I didn't find these minis too difficult to control, but bear in mind that I have small hands.

The formula of these lipsticks is, by my standards, divine. It's not as creamy or slick as some ranges, like Bite Amuse Bouche, and it can make your lips feel a hair dry by the end of the day. However, it applies smoothly to the lips and provides full pigment with a single stroke. The one exception was Noir Red, which I found a bit dryer during application and a bit more drying during wear than the others; it tugged a little as I applied it and I definitely needed balm by the end of the day. As a whole, though, it's a decently comfortable, very opaque, and lush-looking formula.

This product also had impressive wear. No, it's not apocalypse-proof like some liquid mattes, but it's pretty damn close, especially if you compare it to other traditional lipsticks. The above photos show Red Velvet after about 4 hours with some light water drinking (top) and Noir Red after a meal (bottom). There's the usual wear and tear, namely some fading in the very center of my mouth. Beyond that, there's no major smearing, flaking, or feathering.

I honestly love this kit and will keep four out of the five shades. It's encouraged me to check out more of the Besame lipstick range as soon as I finish a few of my current tubes and save up some coins--I'm eyeing Portrait Pink and Tango Red right now. I'd recommend it to:

• people looking to get a feel for the Besame lipstick range.
• those who have yet to find their perfect cool-toned red.
• anybody who has ever said, "I like lipstick, but I can never finish a tube!" (This is especially true if you like certain colors, but only wear them on occasion.)

RATING: 5 out of 5

I bought this set on Sephora'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

REVIEW: Kevyn Aucoin Flesh Tone Lip Pencils

Kevyn Aucoin was one of many famous makeup artists who loved the "heavy neutrals" supermodel look of the 90s. While he passed away in 2002, both his legacy and the impact of the 90s live on in the Flesh Tone Lip Pencil. There are currently 7 shades in this pencil, ranging from beige to bright red, but I own the two originals, the shades that have existed for a decade and harken back to Aucoin's roots: Minimal and Medium.

Here I've swatched both shades side-by-side. Also, check out the shape of my swatches, get it?! Ha ha ha ha this is why I don't have friends.

Anyway!

Minimal is a mid-tone mauve, while Medium is a soft brown. I'd say both are relatively neutral, though they lean more cool than warm. I don't generally believe in saying color cosmetics "suit all skin types," since that logic is usually centered around how well things look on light to medium skin, but these pencils come pretty close: Minimal would likely suit anyone very fair to medium-dark, though the darkest skintones may find it too ashy/white, while Medium is a bit too brown for the fairest skin, but will likely look wonderful on light to very dark skintones. Also, I wear Medium anyway because I'm stubborn, so make of that what you will.

These are traditional wooden pencils with a slightly hard formula, meaning they aren't too smeary or greasy-feeling. That being said, they're soft enough to give you full, even pigment without scratching or tugging on your lips. The harder formula means they'll need sharpened less as well, since it takes a while to wear down the point; I always recommend refrigerating your pencils for 15 minutes before sharpening, but it's not entirely necessary with a formula like this.

Both shades are optimal for lining the lips to make them look fuller and more three-dimensional. In the lip swatch on the left, I've lined my lips with Minimal, then filled them in with MAC Faux lipstick. This has become a favorite lip look of mine, neutral and plump and pretty without looking too harsh on my skintone. And you can absolutely fill your entire lips in with these pencils, maybe topping with balm or gloss, and wear them on their own.

The one part where it gets a bit fuzzy is when you fill in your entire lips with a pencil, then apply a less-than-opaque formula on top; for instance, the lip swatch on the left shows Medium all over the lips with some Flower Beauty Sweet Peach lip butter over it, and the lip butter has done little more than soften the color and add some shine. These are so pigmented that they can and will alter most lip shades you apply on top.

These are absolutely rave-worthy pencils, but I will mention that my NYX lip liners perform similarly for a mere fraction of the cost (and they come in more colors). Still, these two shades are stand-outs that I haven't found exact dupes for, and at $25 for 0.04oz of product, they match other high-end pencils for cost-per-ounce and out-perform almost every other pencil I've tried. In short, Kevyn Aucoin's Flesh Tone Lip Pencils could definitely become standards in most collections.

RATING: 5 out of 5

Pssst--if you're interested in trying these, stay tuned for a giveaway. ;)

REVIEW: Hard Candy Velvet Mousse Matte Lip Color

I've become pickier and pickier about lipsticks, especially liquid lipsticks, thanks to market saturation. Thus far, most liquid lipstick formulas have not impressed me because they're too streaky, drying, or heavy. Then I noticed these new Hard Candy Velvet Mousse Matte Lip Colors at Wal-Mart for $6 each.

I'm not going to lie: the pretty metal tins were part of the draw. But I also thought that, at $6 each and given some of my previous successes with the Hard Candy line, they were really worth a shot. Unfortunately, the product isn't listed on the Hard Candy or Wal-Mart websites at the time of this writing, and there are no product claims listed on the tin, so I'm working a little blind here.

The Hard Candy Velvet Mousse Matte Lip Colors come in pretty metal tins. I'm of two minds on this packaging: on the one hand, it's pretty and you can absolutely remove the black plastic insert and re-use the tins (which is what I've done). On the other hand, you can't see the actual lip color, and it seems a tad wasteful. The actual tubes are thin and flat plastic, and they remind me a lot of the Hourglass Opaque Rouge Liquid Lipstick packaging.

Your $6 nets you 0.23oz/6.5g of product. This is a great price when you compare it, per gram, to some other liquid lipsticks on the market:

Hard Candy Velvet Mousse Matte Lip Color -- $0.92 per gram

Stila Stay All Day Liquid Lipstick -- $8.48 per gram

Dior Addict Fluid Stick -- $6.86 per gram

Colourpop Ultra Matte Lip -- $1.88 per gram

Anastasia Beverly Hills Liquid Lipstick -- $6.25 per gram

And again, you can re-use the tin to store lipsticks, bobby pins, etc., so while I'm not totally sure why they packaged it that way, reusable packaging is a bonus in my book.

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom.

I decided to pick two shades that I don't have liquid versions of in my collection at the moment: Cherry Blossom, a midtone rosy pink, and Sweet Pea, a soft baby pink. Here they are swatched up against the most similar shades in my collection. Cherry Blossom is a bit darker than Kismet On Point, and Sweet Pea is a little softer and less blue than Bite Beauty Velvet.

"Velvet mousse" is a great description of the formula. It's incredibly soft and easy to apply to the lips with the long doe foot applicator. It doesn't feel heavy, per se, but the product doesn't dry down as matte as some liquid lipsticks; if you press your lips together, you'll feel a bit of stickiness. They also smell very strongly of sweet vanilla cake batter, so if you're not in to that scent, you may want to take a pass. (It's not my personal favorite, but I can manage it.) I will note that I can't smell these after I've applied them.

Cherry Blossom on the left, Sweet Pea on the right.

The wear on these is decent. They are not entirely transfer-proof, so you will note the color on the edge of your coffee cup, and they can smear if you put a lot of pressure on them. I'd say they're transfer resistant, however; I got a good 5-6 hours of even, feather-free wear with both shades. Both played well with gloss and lip liner, and in fact, I'd say you might need some liner with a shade like Sweet Pea to keep it from looking too flat.

I think the lighter shades in the range, like Sweet Pea and Hibiscus, may be a bit more difficult to work with. I noticed that I had to be a bit more careful with Sweet Pea to prevent streaking or bald patches. Once I got an even layer applied to my lips, however, it looked fabulous. And to be absolutely fair, this is common with most shades that have a lot of white in their base: they're more likely to go streaky, slash, they require a little more fiddling.

These may not be the mattest or most apocalypse-proof liquid lipsticks out there, but they're also not drying, sit well on the lips, and have relatively smooth and even pigmentation. If you're looking for a budget liquid lipstick that won't parch your lips or flake off throughout the day, this could be the one for you.

RATING: 5 out of 5

REVIEW: Cinema Secrets Moisture Spray

If you've been here for a while, you probably know that I used to love the Skindinavia Setting Sprays. I used those things almost every time I wore makeup: they made it last longer and they added a glow to my face. But as I've aged, my skin has gotten dryer and I've developed a stronger sensitivity to certain ingredients, particularly alcohol denat. Because Skindinavia is loaded with that ingredient, I had to find an alternative for every day wear. The Cinema Secrets spray was the most-recommended option.

The packaging for this product is very bland and unassuming, which isn't surprising, considering Cinema Secrets isn't really a mainstream brand. It's just a plastic spray bottle with a cap and some text printed on it. The spray nozzle on this bottle is just okay: it doesn't give me the finest mist, but it gets the job done. That being said, the bottle is easy to open, so you can easily transfer your product to a different container or refill your bottle. It's also clear so you can see how much you've used. Not pretty, but decently functional.

This is cheap stuff, too: I paid $10 for a 4oz bottle. Compare that to the $29 I used to pay for a 4oz bottle of Skindinavia. No contest!

The main ingredients in this product are water and glycerin, a gentle moisturizing ingredient. When spritzed on your face, the Cinema Secrets Moisture spray is supposed to rejuvenate dry skin, reduce the powdery look of makeup, and give your base a more "natural" effect.

To demonstrate this spray's effect, I decided to make my face more matte than usual. In the photo above, I am wearing MAC Face & Body foundation (one thin layer all over, plus a second thin layer on my nose and the apples of my cheeks), NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer and Maybelline Dream Lumi pen concealer where needed, and a full layer of Dolce & Gabbana powder foundation. This is more powder than I would normally wear, but again, I wanted to demonstrate how this stuff works.

With that said, I don't think my before and after photos dramatically showcase the spray's impact. It is visible, though: my face goes from being relatively matte to slightly more glowy. There's a soft finish effect in the second set of photos that you can hopefully see; it's definitely obvious in real life that this spray softens it all up. When I posted these photos on Makeup Alley to get opinions (without saying what, exactly, was different between the two sets of photos), a lot of people mentioned that there appears to be more coverage in the second set. There isn't--it's the same base--but I think it looks like better coverage because the spray evens things out so much.

Also, note that I'm not wearing mascara in these photos. I do that last because I use a spray; no matter how good a spray is, it's still water, and it can make your mascara a runny mess.

Hopefully, this macro shot demonstrates things a little better. As you can see, my skin looks like skin, despite the fact that I'm wearing several layers of base makeup. I also look relatively smooth and hydrated, even though I'm wearing a matte powder.

You can spritz the Cinema Secrets Moisture Spray on your face before you apply your makeup as well, and I have tested that out. It does work well--my makeup slid over my skin very easily, and it added the same glow and softness--but I just find it more comfortable to spray this on top of my makeup. It's also good for touch-ups throughout the day if I start to look dehydrated.

The one problem I have with this product is that it doesn't dry quickly on its own. After spritzing my face with 5-6 sprays, I have to fan myself with a book for about 15 seconds to get it to dry down. If I spray a little too heavily, I may have to pat the liquid in to my skin. It's only a minor inconvenience, especially given how much I like the finished effect, but it's still worth mentioning.

As a final note, you may have heard that this product is a dupe for MAC Fix +. It isn't an exact dupe: the MAC version has more ingredients, like caffeine and some extra moisturizers. That being said, I find that they give the same effect. Neither product "holds" makeup in place, but neither product is supposed to--and if you don't believe me, you can check the products' claim pages.

Overall, I absolutely love this product. I'm considering buying a different bottle that produces a finer mist, but given how cheap the refill bottles of this spray are, it's worth it. If your skin is dry or dehydrated, give this a shot!

RATING: 5 out of 5

NOTE: I buy my Cinema Secrets Moisture Spray from Amazon.com.

REVIEW: NARS Audacious Mascara

If a store is offering free mascara samples, I'm pretty much there. I'm not entirely sure what prompts this, because I've yet to meet a mascara that tops ye olde Maybelline Full n' Soft. If I had to guess, though, it probably has something to do with my belief that a tiny tube of mascara is more substantial and fun than most foil packet skincare samples.

But because, again, few mascaras work as well for me as Full n' Soft and they cost more, I'm usually disappointed. I'm glad to say that the NARS Audacious Mascara in Black Moon is a rare exception.

The NARS Audacious Mascara retails at $26 for the full 0.32oz size, which is relatively standard for a high-end mascara. To the best of my knowledge, Black Moon is the only shade available, although I'm sure some cool bright shades will come out for fall.

The packaging is NARS's typical black rubberized stuff, which most people have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, it's really elegant and beautiful; I feel classy pulling this stuff out of my makeup bag. It also makes it easier to grip the tube. On the other hand, it gets dirty freakishly easily and is a pain in the arse to clean up. So it's pretty and functional, but probably best left on your vanity.

The wand has rubber bristles. These are not my favorite thing because they tend to be really freaking pointy and painful. Luckily, this brush is minimally pointy: it definitely isn't as soft as a traditional fiber brush, but it doesn't cause me immense pain like that horrendous Kat von D mascara. I can wiggle it in to the roots of the lashes without making my eyes water. If you have very sensitive eyes, you may want to check out the brush on a sample tube at your nearest retailer.

While I usually hate rubber bristle brushes, I have to say that this one does the mascara a lot of favors. The formula is thick, creamy, and slightly on the dry side, which tends to lead to plenty of volume and inky goodness (yay!), but also major clumps (eek). I didn't really have this problem with the NARS mascara because the brush separated the lashes well while still coating them. The result is great volume, good length, and minimal clumps.

The wear on this mascara is also almost-perfect. I didn't have any problems with smudging. I did see a very tiny amount of flaking, but that was at the 5-6 hour mark, and it was just a few itty bitty flakes on each cheek.

One of the best things about Audacious is that you can easily "amp it up" by adding eyeliner or doing an extra coat. This may seem like a silly thing to get excited about, but it's been my experience that a lot of mascaras do not layer well and/or do not look all that different when you tightline. I'm especially wowed by how voluminous and thick my lashes look with just two coats of the mascara: there's tons of volume, but the clumping is still minimal.

Removing those two layers, though, is a little tricky. Audacious is by no means the most tenacious mascara I've ever used, but I do have to hold my baby oil-soaked cotton square on to my lashes for a good 30 seconds per eye to remove the stuff. I can't imagine micellar waters or especially gentle cleansers removing it.

Overall, this mascara is pretty damn impressive. I'm hesitant to give it a perfect score because of the slightly pokey brush, the less-than-optimal removal, and the little bit o' flaking...but I'll be tempted to buy a full tube when this sample runs out. And considering how adverse I am to paying high-end prices for mascara, I think that deserves a 5.

RATING: 5 out of 5