Not as Good as Gold: Review of L'Oréal Colour Riche Lipstick in Gold Addiction

Affiliate Links

Yep. That's the title I came up with for this post. Anyway, do you ever buy something with a specific and entirely unrealistic image of it in your mind, and then feel massively disappointed when it doesn't live up to that image, even though you know it's your fault for inventing it in the first place? What happened here is that, at the beginning of the metallic lipstick trend a couple of years ago, L'Oréal released their Gold Obsessions lipstick range in the U.K. Some photo I saw convinced me that the plain gold lipstick in that collection was the one. That unlike every other gold lipstick I had ever seen, it was shiny and metallic, rather than sparkly, and opaque, rather than patchy.

So when I saw that that collection had finally popped up on the Ulta website this fall, although with the name changed from Obsession to Addiction, I decided that I needed Gold Addiction, the pure gold option. I didn't do much additional research other than to confirm that this was the same collection. I ordered it.

Then it arrived and it was sheer. And sparkly. And slippery. And patchy. Sure enough, I can't find whatever photo it was that once upon a time made me think this lipstick was going to be special. Did I dream it?

I think maybe you can see in the photo above that the fine glitter has already started to migrate off of my lips, even though I only applied the lipstick two minutes before taking the photo.

Gold seems to be a difficult color to get high pigmentation from when it comes to lipstick. When Bite Beauty teased their zodiac lipstick for Leo this year, I saw the gold bullet and was intrigued. But then swatches demonstrated that it, too, was sheer. I may be the least Leo-y Leo ever, but even I think a sheer gold lipstick is a yawn. I have certainly seen other metallics that are more opaque, even from a bullet and not a liquid formula (though they do have a tendency to be slippery). I don't know if it's the yellow--it's hard to find a yellow eyeshadow or even nail polish that isn't patchy. But then it's not hard to find an opaque gold eyeshadow or nail polish! So the possible technical limitations in play here are eluding me.

Here's a comparison with the sheer gold from Bite's 2016 holiday duos (reviewed here). Gold Addiction is very similar, just a bit sparklier and warmer. The warmer yellow gold of the L'Oréal lipstick is harder for me to wear--I can't generally wear warm yellows on my face without looking a bit sick.

Maybe Pat McGrath's new gold lipstick will be the gold holy grail, but I don't think I'm going to gamble (much more!) on it. Probably I should just finally open up the PMG Labs package I won in the Makeup Museum giveaway and play with the gold pigment. That is if I really want to have opaque gold lips, which, let's face it, is hardly an everyday look for me. This might just be a dream I should let go.

If you're looking for a sheer, shimmery gold lipstick, Gold Addiction is . . . one of the ones that exists. But it's nothing very special. Do you do the whole extra glitter and metallics for the holidays? I like the idea in theory, but in practice I'm not going to be attending the kinds of events where I'll dress up like that.

Urban Decay Backtalk Vice Lipstick Comparisons (plus a quick review of NYX Slip Tease Full Color Lip Oil in Lowkey)

Affiliate Links

Urban Decay's Vice Lipstick in Backtalk, in their Comfort Matte finish, is one of the most popular shades in that huge line. They even made a whole eye and face palette based on it. It's in that dusty pink/mauve/MLBB (my-lips-but-better) family, which is the largest category of lip products in my hoard. Despite its popularity and my personal preference for this type of shade, there's something about Backtalk that's just a little off when I wear it. It's not that it looks bad, exactly, but it also doesn't make my face look better than it did without any lipstick.

I decided to swatch all my lipsticks that are even remotely similar to see if I can pick out any patterns and discern why Backtalk doesn't work for me. And since I was doing that, I figured I might as well post them here for you, in case you want to find/avoid dupes--or in case you can help me answer my question.

Here are the swatches, in no particular order. The first swatch in every photo is always Urban Decay Backtalk.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk

2. Bite Beauty Pepper (Luminous Creme formula)

3. Bite Beauty Matte Crème Lip Crayon in Glacé

4. BareMinerals GEN NUDE Liquid Lipstick in Swag

5. Kat Von D Everlasting Liquid Lipstick in Lovesick

6. Make Up For Ever Artist Rouge Lipstick in Rosewood

7. Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick in Fig

So of the lipsticks in this selection, besides Backtalk, the only two I don't really like on myself are the KVD Lovesick and Bite Fig. Lovesick is a little cooler, with more pink/purple, than Backtalk, and Fig is much warmer and peachier. (Fortunately Lovesick is also a sample, because since it does that dried-up butthole thing to my lips, I wouldn't want to be stuck with a whole tube. Also, I don't buy Kat Von D products.) I'm not sure I'm seeing a pattern here yet.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk (It's interesting how Backtalk will look different depending on what other swatches you put it next to. The lighting is the same!)

2. Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick in Rhubarb

3. Maybelline Creamy Matte Lipstick in Touch of Spice (reviewed here)

4. NYX Slip Tease Full Color Lip Oil in Lowkey (which is very, very similar to Touch of Spice--more on this lipstick below!)

5. Colourpop Lux Lipstick in Angel City

6. Nars Satin Lip Pencil in Rikugien

7. Wet N Wild Megalast Lipstick in Rose-bud

Everything here is much warmer than Backtalk, and it all works well for me, so maybe that's something. Rhubarb is slightly blah on me, but I'm guessing it would look great on people who like Revlon Sultry, which is similar to Maybelline Touch of Spice but slightly less flattering on me (review/comparison here).

Side note: has anyone ever come across a dupe for Wet N Wild Rose-bud? I love the color, but the Megalast formula always dries out my lips.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk 

2. L'Oréal Colour Riche La Lacque Lip Pen in Choco-lacque (reviewed here)

3. Urban Decay Revolution Lipstick in Rapture (discontinued, but available in Vice format)

4. Urban Decay Sheer Revolution Lipstick in Sheer Rapture (discontinued)

5. Revlon Balm Stain in Honey (reviewed here)

6. Tom Ford Lip Color Matte in Pussycat

Pussycat looks closest to Backtalk here, and it's also the one I like least on my face, though slightly better than Backtalk. These two lipsticks are both pretty muted (i.e. they have grey added), so that could be a clue. Rapture looks muted when you consider it alone, but next to Backtalk, it's a bit more saturated.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk 

2. Tarte Tarteist Creamy Matte Lip Paint in Birthday Suit (i.e. last year's Sephora birthday gift)

3. LA Girl Matte Lipstick in Snuggle (reviewed here)

4. Burt's Bees Lip Crayon in Sedona Sands

5. Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick in Thistle

None of the above is particularly similar to Backtalk, so the fact that most of them work for me isn't especially informative. The exception is Birthday Suit, which is an unflattering beige--I think it's the yellow undertones that set it apart from the superficially similar Snuggle. Come to think of it, though, Thistle is both very muted and pretty cool, and I like it a lot on me. Maybe that's because it's more of a statement corpse-lip, rather than just looking accidentally blah. (I'm wearing it in this Instagram pic, though the lighting isn't great.)

You probably want to see what Backtalk actually looks like on me at this point. (Apologies for the grainy photo.)

Like I said, it's not awful, but a great lipstick will light up your face, and a good lipstick will at least be better than nothing.

I'm not sure what I've learned through this process. I need my MLBB lipsticks to be muted, but not too muted, and more brown than grey, maybe. Or more brown than pink? Thoughts? I have definitely learned that I have way too many similar lipsticks (ok, I already knew that), and that weirdly enough I have never reviewed most of these. Any you'd like to know more about?

I'll tell you more right now about one of them. I recently used Ulta points to pick up a lipstick from one of NYX's 700 or so liquid lipstick lines, a newer one called Slip Tease Full Color Lip Oil. It's full color, sure, but having oil in the name is a bit of a red herring. It's not like YSL Tint-In-Oil or most other products called lip oils. It's less drying than most matte liquid lipsticks, sure, but there's nothing that looks or feels oily about it. (There are a few oils halfway down the ingredients list, but a lot of other things come before them.)

Here is Lowkey on my face:

More flattering, wouldn't you agree, than Backtalk? The rest of my makeup is the same, as is the lighting. Here's a lip swatch:

When you see it all alone, it looks like a rosy pink, but in the swatches above (second set), you can see that it definitely has some brown in it when compared to other lipsticks in the same family. The formula is really lovely. It's slightly moussey and thick enough that you can easily and neatly apply it using just the doe foot (not as thick as the Tarte liquid lipstick, though). It's opaque in one coat, but not so pigmented that it risks getting really messy. The finish is demi-matte. It dries down a bit but not completely, so it retains slip and moisture and feels pretty much like a bullet lipstick--yet it doesn't transfer easily. Wear time is about the same as a decent bullet, so you'll probably have to reapply after a meal. Best of all, it doesn't dry my lips out.

This is one of the nicest lipsticks I've tried recently, and probably the nicest liquid lipstick I've ever used. I'd recommend giving it a try if you see a color you like. That's my one complaint: while I love Lowkey (way to be hip to the new slang, kids), none of the other colors really interests me. There's variety, but something about the selection bores me. Bang Bang and Entice might be ok? I think a terracotta orange would be really great in this formula.

I kind of ordered Lowkey blind (you can never trust Ulta's photos for color accuracy), but it ended up working great. It would be nice if I could work out some kind of rules to predict which lipsticks will work best on me. Do you know what works for you when you see it, or do you have to try everything on like I do?

For Dry Eyes Only: Review of IT Cosmetics Bye Bye Under Eye Full Coverage Anti-Aging Waterproof Concealer

Affiliate Links

I have a wandering eye when it comes to makeup, and it usually doesn't do me much good. I have a totally reliable, nearly perfect under-eye concealer in the form of Sephora Gel Serum Concealer (reviewed here), and yet . . .

It Cosmetics Bye Bye Under Eye [insert long name here] is one of those concealers that comes up whenever people ask for recommendations, alongside things like Nars Radiant Creamy Concealer. So I was tempted. I should have known better, since it claims to be waterproof. Things can usually be waterproof or oil-proof, but not both (which makes perfect sense). I do have pretty watery eyes, so a waterproof concealer isn't a bad idea in theory, but my skin also tends to get oilier and oilier as the day goes on. It's almost always more important for my makeup to be able to withstand my oily skin than to resist water.  This concealer just doesn't hold up for me, unfortunately.

It has some great qualities that I'm sure contribute to its popularity. For one thing, it's incredibly pigmented, so that you only need a tiny bit of the thick product to cover the entire under-eye area. For me, this is all it takes for one eye:

It also blends easily and covers well enough, initially. The packaging, a simple squeeze tube with a very narrow dispenser is great--it will limit the amount of air and bacteria that can get in, but also makes it easy to squeeze out the last few specks. Bye Bye Under Eye only comes in six shades. I chose the lightest, called Light (Very Fair). In makeup lingo, "light" and "very fair" are usually two different things, but sure. Here is a swatch compared to a bunch of other concealers to help you decode that label:

From left to right: (1) IT Cosmetics Bye Bye Undereye in Light; (2) Sephora Gel Serum Concealer in Fondant; (3) Nars Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly; (4) Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx02; (5) Urban Decay 24/7 Concealer Pencil in CIA (discontinued); and (6) Hard Candy Glamoflauge Concealer in Ultra Light.

It Cosmetics Light is closest to Nars Chantilly. I found it to be a good match for my skin tone, fortunately, since the shade options were limited. It's probably a closer match than Sephora Fondant, in fact, though the extra warmth of Fondant means it actually does a better job of canceling out my dark circles. The consistency and pigmentation of Bye Bye Undereye is most similar to the Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer, but the IT doesn't have that strong floral/powdery fragrance. (By the way, Hard Candy Ultra Light is the lightest concealer I have ever found, so if you have trouble finding something pale enough for you, it's worth a shot.)

On the downside, I found that Bye Bye Under Eye creased really badly on me and highlighted fine lines and flakiness that I didn't even know were there. I tried various application methods with no improvement. The photo below was taken immediately after application, patted on with my finger over well-moisturized but not primed skin. I'm not wearing any other makeup besides eyebrow pencil. (I forgot to take a before photo, but you can see the bare state of my dark circles here or here.)

The coverage is good, but the texture isn't ideal, and it's creased a whole lot. Not a huge deal, maybe, because most concealers crease right after I apply them, and I can usually blend a little more after a few minutes to soften the creasing.

Here it is with the rest of my makeup applied, after a little more light blending with a sponge, and setting with No.7 loose powder (reviewed here).

The texture is worse, and instead of the creases smoothing out, the concealer has basically just lifted out of them. It has also already faded quite a bit just in the amount of time it took me to apply the rest of my makeup. Sigh. (As I said, I tried a few different application/blending/setting methods with the same results.)

Besides the lack of a smooth surface, the other big problem, which I mentioned above, is that the oil in my skin just devours this stuff. By the end of the day, there's very little left, except what was caught by those lines and flakes. Lovely.

The photo above was taken after about eight hours on not a particularly hot or sweaty day. My skin is what you might euphemistically describe as dewy. Even so, my mascara (Tarte Lights, Camera, Lashes) and my eyebrow pencil (Essence Eyebrow Designer Pencil) have stuck around just fine. My dark circles are on major display, though.

To be fair, this is what happens to most concealers on my face. One of the things that impressed me so much about the Sephora Gel Serum (please never discontinue it, please, please, please) was that it was still there at the end of the day. So this problem doesn't necessarily make this concealer worse than all other concealers, just worst than my fave.

Clearly a lot of people out there like this stuff. My guess is that those people do not have oily skin. If you have drier skin and teary eyes, maybe this is great. (Though I would still be concerned that it would highlight flaky skin, to be honest.) But if your skin type is similar to mine, I certainly wouldn't recommend this product. I've already bought another tube of my trusty Sephora concealer, which costs $14 versus IT Cosmetics' $24--though note that the IT tube contains twice as much product, so if you like it and can get through it all before it starts to dry up, it's actually a better value.

If this concealer is your holy grail, I think it would be really helpful for people reading this review if you would comment and let me know what type of skin you have and what you look for in a concealer.

Anyway, lesson learned.

Maybe.

Probably not.

New and improved? The new Wet N Wild Comfort Zone palette compared to the original

Affiliate Links

I have something of a series now comparing reformulated Wet N Wild products with their predecessors (here and here), among them some of my favorite affordable makeup. Those previously revamped products didn't exactly measure up to the originals in my comparisons, so I have to admit I had serious doubts about the new Wet N Wild Comfort Zone palette. Why change something that has been consistently recommended as one of the best drugstore eyeshadow palettes on the market?

I've been thinking the answer to that question for a while. Unlike many redesigns by other brands, Wet N Wild didn't reduce the product size while jacking up the price. In fact, the price has remained the same, while the weight has actually increased (minimally) from 0.3 to 0.32 oz. Because two new matte shades were added, and they are in the largest pans, that should mean that the size of each of the original shades has decreased, however, which is worth noting.

If I had to guess why the change was made, I'd point to the fragility of the shadows, and maybe the packaging too. I can't be sure, but I do know lots of people complained about their Wet N Wild shadows crumbling and shattering with the slightest bump. I don't know if you can see it in the photo above, but the duochrome in the in bottom right of my old palette does has a small chunk missing--I have no idea when or how that happened. If the eyeshadows broke too often after people bought them, you have to assume that they also frequently broke in transit and while they were in stores, so the amount of product discarded might not have made up for the number of sales. (I'd be curious to hear if anyone's new palette has crumbled, but the shadows seem a bit more durable to me.) Of course, there's also the fact that a new release/re-release generates publicity and increases sales.

I've had my OG Comfort Zone palette since 2011 or 2012, and despite appearances, I've used it quite a lot. It has intense, smooth, metallic shimmers that perform really well. I'm not such a fan of the matte shades with glitter ("Definer" on the left and "Crease" on the right) though they are decent for lining the eyes. I like it so much that the reformulation had a lot to live up to. I'm not going to do a full review of each palette, but I am going to compare each shade and show you some swatches and eye looks.

Here is the first row of shimmers, in the (new) order of the new palette, starting with the left hand column. All applied over Wet N Wild primer (reviewed here) to make the colors and finishes as clear as possible for comparison. The old version is on the left and the new version is on the right.

The duochromes always get me: Review of L'Oréal Infallible Galaxy Lumiere Holographic Eyeshadows in Crescent Moon, Full Moon, and Moon Kissed

Affiliate Links

Two duochrome posts in a row? Is that allowed? (As usual, we ignore the word "holographic" when it's in the name of a makeup product.) I love duochromes, and they make me pay more for drugstore eyeshadows than I normally would. More for eyeshadow singles in general (though there was that time I paid full price for Urban Decay X, and I don't even really like it). These (deep breath) L'Oréal Infallible Galaxy Lumiere Holographic Eyeshadows are $13 a piece, so I suggest waiting for a sale, which will always come sooner or later for drugstore makeup. I had a B2GO Free deal from, but if I hadn't also had Ulta points from my credit card to spend, I might have balked even at that.

None of that is to say that I don't think these eyeshadows are amazing and totally worth picking up if you are a duochrome fiend like I am. They're absolutely lovely.

The formula of these eyeshadows is interesting. Though they have the "Infallible" name attached to them, they're not the same as the regular Infallible singles (reviewed here), which come with little plates on top to keep them densely packed. These Galaxy shadows have a more spongey texture--not as squishy as Colourpop Super Shock eyeshadows, but if you press your finger into the pan, you can feel it compress a bit. I dropped Full Moon on the floor and, instead of shattering, the whole shadow came loose in one piece inside the pan. I was able to press it back in place with a finger. Like the L'Oréal Infallible eyeshadows and the Colourpop Super Shock shadows, these apply best with a finger. With a brush they go on very sheer and a little patchy.

How about I let my many, many photos do the talking? My swatches were made with a brush without primer. Each one is several layers, because these shadows are sheer, and in swatch form they don't show up clearly in a single layer.

Left to right: Crescent Moon (sheer beige with green shift), Full Moon (white gold), and Moon Kissed (purple with blue shift).

Butter London Glazen Blush Gelee in Glimmer

Affiliate Links

I love my Butter London Glazen Eye Gloss in Oil Slick (swatched here), and so I was curious about how a similar formula would function as a blush. The eyeshadow has intense glitter and dries very quickly--neither of which are qualities I'm looking for in a cream blush. And Butter London's promotional photos weren't very inspiring. (My Instagram stories commentary on their ad below.)

Actually, yeah, that is a pretty accurate photo, I suspect, if you just smeared an opaque layer of this blush on your cheek in a circle. If you want to avoid that look, like I do, it's kind of a tricky product to use. I'll get to that later.

First, the texture. It really is unusual. It's gelatinous and jiggly. I made you a GIF!

The cheapest metallic thrills: Wet N Wild Silk Finish Lipsticks in Dark Pink Frost and Fuchsia with Blue Pearl

Affiliate Links

Auxiliary Beauty has created a very useful taxonomy flowchart of lipstick finishes, which I think is totally accurate. According to that chart, these two lipsticks are neither metallic, as I'm calling them, nor frosts, as Wet N Wild calls (one of) them. They are probably best classified somewhere in the duochrome or shimmer/pearl families. And yet everything is apparently metallic these days, so I've lazily labelled these things that way too, because I think they serve as cheap dupes or alternatives for the various "metallic" lipsticks that are popping up left and right lately. Whatever you want to call them, they're are good starters for people venturing into reflective lip territory (as well as for those of us who are already pretty comfortable there).

Wet N Wild's Silk Finish Lipsticks are about the cheapest lipsticks you're going to get at 99 cents, and they're really no frills. The packaging is basic (though better designed than the slightly more expensive Wet N Wild MegaLast tubes). Even the names of most of them are simply descriptive. I'm guessing they date back to when these lipsticks were first released, which must be at least 25 years ago, though I haven't been able to find out their history. Even if Dark Pink Frost doesn't seem entirely accurate (it's neither dark nor a frost?), it'll certainly tell you more about what you're getting than the names of the new shades added to the line a few years ago, like What's Up Doc?.

There's definitely some variation in the quality and finish of the lipsticks in this line. I used to have Nouveau Pink, which was a bubblegum pink cream, and it applied and wore wonderfully. In contrast, What's Up Doc? (reviewed here), another cream, was a streaky, slippery mess (but makes a great cream blush!). Both of these shimmers are gorgeous, but Dark Pink Frost is much sheerer than Fuchsia with Blue Pearl. They both have an average wear time--they're not going to last all day, but you're also not going to look in a mirror an hour after applying them to find a mess. Fuchsia with Blue Pearl in particular leaves a pretty even stain behind.

It's a bit difficult to capture the blue in FWBP in a photo, but it's definitely there. And you can see that DPF has some more sparkly shimmer, while FWBP has that smooth pearly finish. But since neither of them reflects back icy or silvery, I don't think they're truly frosty. Each of the swatches below is a few swipes, since, as I said, neither is completely opaque.

So you can see where their subtle duochrome identity comes in. DPF is pink with gold shimmer, or rose gold, and FWBP is, well, fuchsia with blue pearl.

On my lips, DPF does emphasize lines a bit, but that doesn't bother me. Lips normally have lines in them, regardless of age. Think of it the other way around: the texture of my lips enhances the shimmer. It's a warm, rosy pink that keeps it from veering into scarily frosty territory, and it's easy to wear with whatever else I have going on.

FWBP is bolder, for sure, but the blue is subtle enough that if you can pull off a bright pink in general, this isn't going to look costumey or bizarre. It's not perfectly opaque, but it's pigmented enough that you can get good coverage in one layer. Both of these lipsticks are non-drying and maybe even a little moisturizing. Both of the disguise dry flakiness in my lips rather than exaggerating it.

I think these are both, in fact, totally 80s lipsticks while at the same time being totally current. I mean, Too Faced could easily feed us some unicorn-fairy bullshit to sell these colors. Overall, the Wet N Wild Silk Finish lipsticks are decent products with some interesting colors in the line. I think these two stand on their own as just plain good lipsticks, but the $1 price also makes them an excellent choice for trying out colors and finishes you might not be sure will work for you.

I've only tried the four Silk Finish lipsticks mentioned here. Are there any others you've used that you'd recommend?

Plummy bronze: Urban Decay Vice Lipstick in Accident and Urban Decay Revolution Lip Gloss in Shadowheart

Affiliate Links

Can you tell I couldn't come up with a good title? Titles are always the hardest part of any writing. In general, though, I've been struggling a bit with motivation/inspiration to blog lately, even though I've been fully enjoying my beauty products. I think I've figured something out. I usually have some kind of angle to my posts, like a comparison or an analysis, you know? At the very least I'm trying to write about whether or not something is worth buying. But right now I have a lot of products that I haven't written about, but that don't exactly have a hook. So I've been feeling like I have nothing to write about, even though I actually have a ton of shit. It's not that these products aren't interesting; it's just that they aren't gimmicky or controversial, etc. But I'm just going to go ahead and write about them anyway. Why not? We'll look at some pretty (I hope) pictures together and think about makeup and skincare. I definitely still have some of my old tricks up my sleeve, but I'm also going to work my way through my hoard and show you all the things. Does that sound cool?

I'm starting with a lipstick I bought in the fall, Urban Decay Vice Accident, and a gloss I bought earlier in the winter, Urban Decay Revolution Shadowheart. They're an obvious pairing since they're almost exactly the same color in two different formulas and finishes (obviously). Shadowheart has been discontinued, along with the rest of the Revolution glosses, but you may still be able to get it for $11 on Urban Decay's site, which is where I got this tube. It's also been included in their new lip gloss formula, which isn't available yet.

(Side note: It looks like Urban Decay changed their loyalty program so that you don't get free shipping until the second tier, which is too bad. But if you're going to shop from their site anyway, I think it's still worth joining to get the birthday gift, etc. This is my referral link, which gives you 10 points.)

Accident is one of the metallized Vice lipsticks, with a plummy brown base and gold shimmer. The brown is on the neutral side (is neutral a side?), but it will probably look different depending on your natural lip color, since it's just a little sheer. Shadowheart looks a bit redder in the tube, but is also a brown base with gold shimmer, though not nearly as metallic as Accident.

Why did I buy a gloss the same color as a lipstick I already had? I DON'T KNOW.

Here, swatches! Accident on the left, Shadowheart on the right.

See how similar they are? Shadow heart has a little more red in it, but it's very close.

It's interesting how Accident doesn't look very reflective in a swatch, like it does on the lips. Arm swatches can only tell you so much. Let me show you.

Here is Accident on my lips:

Like I said, it's a bit sheer, so I apply a layer, blot, and then apply a second layer. I haven't had any trouble with bleeding or settling into lip lines. The wear time is decent, and it doesn't look ugly as it wears off, though it's certainly not an unusually long-wearing lipstick. It's extremely comfortable, just like almost every Urban Decay lipstick I've tried. (The exception is Sheer F-Bomb, reviewed here.) It feels lovely--I'd go as far as to say it's a actually moisturizing.

Here's my whole face. (Excuse the terrible reflections on my glasses. I've yet to find the right lighting for selfies in this apartment. If I go out on the balcony, I end up squinting and frowning, but inside in front of a window this happens. I'm working on it. Maybe I should get Lasik for purely blogging purposes.)

I think that the pink in my lips enhances the plum in this lipstick a little, and those purplish undertones help it to be more flattering on me than a true brown lipstick would be. The gold shimmer gives Accident a glossy look as much as a metallic finish. It's a really fun and unusual lipstick, but totally wearable for pretty much any occasion. Here's another photo of it in warmer indoor lighting.

Shadowheart was a little disappointing, because it looks more shimmery and opaque in Temptalia's photos. I also have the Revolution gloss in After Dark, which is so opaque that it's almost a liquid lipstick, so I had high expectations.

In the photo above, I've applied a pretty heavy layer of Shadowheart, and you can see that it's still pretty sheer and a little patchy. It doesn't look bad from a distance, though (below). The gold shimmer is extremely understated. It's a nice gloss in a great color that I didn't have--it just doesn't have the impact of Accident. It is, however, just as comfortable and moisturizing as the lipstick.

See? A pretty gloss, for sure. Using Too Faced's Lip Insurance (reviewed here) helps a bit with the pigmentation, and Shadowheart also looks great layered on top of Accident.

As you can see, I've now fully embraced the brown lipstick life. I'm enjoying both of these, though if I had to choose, obviously I'd go with Accident. It's a really special lipstick in my overflowing collection. Shadowheart has been included in the new Urban Decay lip gloss selection, though, so maybe they've amped up the shimmer and pigment. Here's hoping!

Shadow Swatches: Miscellaneous Eyeshadow Singles and Quads from Stila, L'Oréal, Tom Ford, Butter London, Revlon, and Urban Decay

Affiliate Links

I didn't buy anything during the Sephora sale, did you? 20% off just isn't very exciting for me. I mean maybe if there was something I was definitely planning to buy anyway, it would be better to get 20% off than no discount at all, but there wasn't. Plus I have a bunch of Ulta points to use on frivolous shit.

Instead of shopping, lately, I've been playing with what I already have, including these eyeshadows which I realized I'd (mostly) never written about on my blog. Rather than doing a full review of them, I thought I'd just take some swatch photos and say a little about what I like or don't like about each. Not all of them are currently available, but I hope you enjoy the pretty pictures anyway.

The swatches below were made with a brush over primer (Black Radiance eyeshadow primer, reviewed here). If this were a proper review, I would have swatched them with and without primer for your information, but I just really wanted to show you the color and finish clearly. You can still tell which ones are shitty even over primer, anyway.

Oh, and I took way too many photos, which probably all look the same, so here's a cut.

My First Colourpop: Blotted Lip in Candyfloss

Here I am, as usual, years behind the trend curve, with my one and only Colourpop purchase. For whatever reason, I've never been particularly attracted to Colourpop products. It may be because, despite my unreasonable hoard of makeup, I tend not to approach makeup with a collector's attitude, but rather by looking for functional, workhorse products. Most of the time. I get the impression that Colourpop makeup tends not to last an especially long time, either because of its small size or because it will dry up or go bad quickly (obviously this is unlikely to be the case with their new pressed powders). For instance, the Lippie Stix like the one I'm reviewing here are pretty cheap per unit at $5 a piece, but since they contain only a gram of product, they are relatively expensive by weight. I think, then, that they are ideal for someone who wants one of every color and/or doesn't expect to finish lipstick quickly, but less ideal for someone looking to discover their favorite lipstick and wear it constantly. But you know all of that already.

None of the above prevented me from pouncing when Colourpop offered a Blotted Lip for free with shipping a few months ago. It was the perfect way for a (cheap) skeptic like me to try one of their products without having to commit to a big order that would make the shipping seem more reasonable (bad economics, I know). I was on a brown/terracotta lipstick kick this summer (like everyone else), and it hasn't ended yet, so I'm glad I chose Candyfloss. The Blotted Lips are sheer, matte lipsticks, most often compared to Glossier's much pricier Generation G lipsticks.

Here's Candyfloss on my lips:

It's actually not super sheer, as you can see, but it's translucent enough to make it easy to swipe on quickly without worrying too much about mistakes. Because it's sheer, it can look a tiny bit patchy, but only on really close inspection, which most people are not going to subject you to, I assume. I'm guessing that it might appear smoother on someone with a more brownish or peachy natural lip color than it does on my pink lips, because the color showing through wouldn't contrast--whereas pink or fuschia sheer stains tend to look more natural on me.

I like this lipstick a lot. It wears well, and when it fades, it doesn't look messy. It's slightly drying, but you can apply a decent layer of balm underneath or even on top of it, and it will only enhance how it looks. (I'm unreasonably picky about things that dry out my lips, so you might not find this stuff drying at all.) I haven't had any difficulty with the packaging or anything else.

Here are comparisons with some other brownish lipsticks I own. I swiped each one just a single time so that you can see the relative opacity.

Left to right: (1) Colourpop Blotted Lip in Candyfloss; (2) Urban Decay Epigram; (3) Maybelline Maple Kiss; (4) LA Girl Matte Flat Velvet Lipstick in Hush; (5) Maybelline Touch of Spice; and (6) Bite Beauty Pepper.

Candyfloss is now the most orangey-brown lipstick I own, even compared to Maple Kiss, which I used too think was too brown for me to wear. It's quite clearly a lot sheerer than the others I've swatched, though Hush and Pepper are close. If you want a sheer, matte, nude that's available in drugstores (i.e. not just online like Colourpop), LA Girl Hush is a decent alternative for only $4, though obviously it's a much cooler nude than Candyfloss.

The colo(u)r of Candyfloss is beautiful, and the formula is great, so if you're placing a Colourpop order, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it\\adding it to your cart. Of the Blotted Lips, it's one I haven't heard people talk much about, but it's very wearable (at least for me). I probably won't be picking up more of these any time soon, or any other Colourpop products for that matter, but that's mostly because I am trying not to spend money on makeup right now. I will certainly let you know if I happen upon another Colourpop freebie, however!

ETA: Here's a $5 off referral link!

Do you prefer sheer or opaque lip products? Sheer are more beginner friendly, and I certainly had to work my way up to the super-pigmented, but I still love something like this that's simple to apply and reapply.

Is No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder a dupe for Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder?

Left: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Right: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

Translucent powders are hard to review. If they work well, they look like nothing at all. I got a mini jar of Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder as a Christmas gift last year, and I liked it enough that I considered spending the $38 to get the full size. But that's a lot of money, so I needed to think carefully about why I liked it.

Top/Left: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Bottom/Right: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

It's truly invisible on my skin, no matter how much I apply. I use it to set my concealer and I've used it on bare skin and over foundation. It never looks powdery and it doesn't cause what's under it to get dry and weird. Now YMMV on this aspect, because I've read reviews in which people have said that this powder looks cakey and obvious on their skin no matter what they do with it. I don't know for sure what the cause is, but I'm guessing it has to do with the color. It's very pale and on the yellow side of neutral. Translucent, sure, but if you have darker or cooler skin, it might not be translucent enough. In fact, I'm pretty certain that's the case, because Laura Mercier recently added a second shade called Translucent Medium Deep--the original is just called "Translucent." (Of course, the mini jar only comes in the lighter shade. Sigh.) Since I'm pale and neutral-toned, the lighter shade works well for me.

It also creates a natural, flattering finish on my skin. It mattifies but not so much that it looks dry and powdery. It has a very subtle blurring or softening effect without any shimmer at all. And while it doesn't exactly make my makeup wear all day under sweaty conditions, it works well enough to set everything.

It's great and I like it a lot, but it's not exactly magic or anything. So when I read somewhere that No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder was a $13 "dupe" for the LM powder, I decided to give it a shot. I'm admittedly not terribly picky about powder, so I figured that even if it wasn't perfect, it would be adequate for the time being.

(You might note that the LM powder contains 1 full oz., while the No7 has only 0.7 oz., but that still makes the No7 significantly cheaper either way you look at it.)

The main difference between the two powders is the color. While they are both light and translucent, the No7 powder is quite a bit pinker.

Left: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Right: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

As I said, my skin tone is just on the warm side of neutral, but while I guess the LM powder is technically a slightly better match, they both work equally well for me in practice. Here are heavy finger swatches for another comparison:

Top: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Bottom: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

No shimmer, as you can see.

I also blended out the swatches, but the photo isn't very helpful. I guess you can see why I didn't bother to show you a photo of the powder on my face. They both turn invisible on my skin.

Top: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Bottom: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

But maybe you can see a little of the softening effect I described? Maybe not.

Other than the color, I haven't noticed any real difference in performance between these two products, so I'm quite satisfied with my budget option.

I will say that the packaging for the No7 is a little overly bulky and also slightly messier than the LM powder. Powder tends to settle on that sort of ledge around the edge of the jar and then scatter from there (you can see what I mean in the second photo above). Neither of these powders is so light that it flies all over the room and up my nose, fortunately (looking at you, MUFE HD powder). Both jars have annoyingly domed lids so that you can't stack anything on top of them--the No7 is almost but not quite flat, just to rub it in. And they both came with very nice powder puffs inside, which, in both cases, I promptly lost, because I use a brush--so no photos, sorry.

My suggestion is that if you are similar to me in coloring, just go with the cheaper No7 option. It's available for the same price at Ulta and Target. If you are pale but very warm, and you're concerned that the No7 might not be a good match, the Laura Mercier powder might be a better bet--but honestly I would still probably gamble that the No7 would be translucent enough to work for you. If you have darker skin, it's probably going to be worth your while to purchase the darker Laura Mercier shade. And let's hope that No7 and other brands get their shit together and realize that even if something is translucent, a light shade is not going to work for everyone. Is it really so hard to produce two fucking shades?

ULTA Holographic Eye & Cheek Palette: My alternative to the Kat Von D Alchemist and Anastasia Beverly Hills Moonchild Palettes (and all the others)

Affiliate Links

This is really just a post about something fun and shiny I've been playing with lately. Tons of photos, so be prepared! I got this Holographic Eye & Cheek Palette recently using some ULTA points (it's normally $16, but on sale for $8 right now). I'd been moving the Kat Von D Alchemist palette in and out of my Sephora cart for a few months. I love anything duochrome or shifty, but I had a hard time justifying $32 when I don't wear noticeable highlighter very often, and I doubted how much I'd actually use it as an eyeshadow transformer. I'm more of a 1-2 shades of eyeshadow person. For while I considered the BH Cosmetics Blacklight Highlight Palette, which contains 6 huge pans of iridescent highlighter for $17--but then I remembered that I was trying to minimize the amount of makeup I traveled with, and carting around an enormous highlighter supply probably wouldn't help me achieve that goal. (I'm not going to do a whole price-per-ounce analysis right now, but I can tell you that in the BH palette, you'll get a lot more product than in the ULTA palette for close to the same price, and in the KVD palette you'll get significantly less for twice the cost.)

So I settled on this ULTA option, in part because of my points, and in part because I've had good luck with ULTA brand products in the past. I think they're pretty underrated--the eyeliners are particularly great--and they always have some sort of sale on the store brand, so that you should never have to pay full price for anything.

As it turns out, I'm very happy that I bought this palette and equally happy that I didn't buy Alchemist, because while it's a lot of fun to play with, my predictions about how I would or wouldn't use it were accurate.

ULTA's Holographic Eye & Cheek Palette includes, as you can see, four iridescent, shifty, sheer highlighters. Have another look at the pans, and then I'll show about a million swatches after the cut.

It looks really pretty in the bathroom lighting, ok?