Meet the Staff: The Sketchbook
· Blog Home
· Profile
· MySpace
· Contact Us
· FAQ/TOS
Articles This Month
· Old School Beauty Forums #1
· A makeup stash, old and new
· Minimalist thoughts
· A Return to Minimalism: Part 2
· A Return to Minimalism: Part 1
· A Return to Minimalism: Introduction
· Color Me In: Amy
· Beauty Notes: Hauling (5.23.05)
· More on sheers...
· Beauty Notes: Diagnosis of a Trend: Sheer Makeup
· Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #4
· Beauty Notes: Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe (Browns and Nudes)
· FOTD
· Beauty Notes: Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe (The Foundation)
· Beauty Notes: Hauling (5.14.05)
· Beauty Notes: Dior 5-Color Eyeshadow
· Beauty Notes: Obsessions (5.13.05)
· Beauty Notes: Dr. Hauschka
· Beauty Notes: NARS Cleo
· Beauty Notes: NARS Rated R
· Beauty Notes: NARS Babylon
· Beauty Notes: Stephane Marais Cream Foundation
· Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #3
· Beauty Notes: Body Time
· Beauty Notes: MAC Powersurge!
· Five Minute Makeup
Archives
· Beauty Blog (2003-2004)
· Fashion Blog (archive)
· New Releases Blog (archive)
· Beauty Articles (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007
· July 2007
· August 2007
· September 2007
· October 2007
· November 2007
· December 2007
· January 2008
· February 2008
· March 2008
· April 2008
· May 2008
Comments
Recent blog posts:
Links
Barneys
refinery29
The Sartorialist
Perfume Shrine
Polyvore
The Fashioniste
The Powder Group
LA-Story.com
Dain's Literary Attempts
Colleen's Beading Blog
Colleen's Adult Acne Blog
The Beauty Blog Network
Eponym Blog Directory.
TBF Project:Blog
The Lipstick Page Forums Beauty & Fashion Blog: May 2005
Old School Beauty Forums #1
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:31 PM (Eastern)
Ah...I have been posting on beauty boards, including the one I'm one of the owners of now, since 1998.
Back then I posted as Josephine. Why? I don't know, I suppose at the time I thought there would be tremendous numbers of evil people on the Net. Mind you, not everyone had Internet access back then. It was new. I remember we had to tell people how to post on a--what is now quaint--BBS.
Now of course it has all changed. Everyone and their dog has Internet access; better Internet access than I have. No one needs to be told anymore how to use the most elaborate PHP forum. I got rid of most of the instructions that came with the UBB Threads one on this site.
Along with this change...this massive influx of everyone and everything...the old school beauty board posters scattered, diffused, were all but lost really.
This parallels the...evolution, if you could call it that...of the Net itself, into ever more commercialized productions...a giant sprawl of commercial-based sites, that are slowly dominating the search engines and directories.
Well? I'm a geek. I don't accept that geeks should quite allow the Net to become just another television or radio. It's the geeks who know the system; no one else does.
Where was I. Oh yeah, the old school beauty boards and their posters.
The old school boards were small by the standards of 2005 commercial-based beauty boards. You knew everyone there. But by no means, was it ever like a small town. I came from a small-ish town...Norfolk, Virginia, which I suppose is large enough in size, but tending toward the small in scope (the natives can tell ya)...the old school beauty boards were never like that. Much more like a small big city, filled with exciting, sophisticated people who were discovering, well, other cosmetic junkies, for the first time.
I myself am not sure if that era is gone. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. I'm inclined to believe that it's over only if we, the old school beauty board posters, say it's over.
0 comment(s)
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
A makeup stash, old and new
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, 3:07 PM (Eastern)
Here's a pic of my makeup stash, circa January 2004:
Left to right, top to bottom:
1st column: MAC eyeshadow singles in Laven-dah!, Shroom, Swish, and Sable.
2nd column: MAC Veluxe shadow singles in Samoa Silk and Silly Goose; MAC shadow single in Vapour, MAC Sheertone blush in Blushbaby; Maybelline Wet Shine lipstick in Sweet Sorbet.
3rd column: Clockwise: The Body Shop shadow singles in Damson, Taupe and Clover Pink; Burt's Bees lip balm (yellow tube); Bonne Bell Liplix in Gotta Date?, MAC lipstick in ???.
4th column: Left to right: MAC eyepencil in Wine, Revlon SoftStroke PowderLiner in Brown Suede, L'Oreal Le Grand Kohl in Raisin.
Here is a current pic as of today:
Left to right:
Back row: Black|Up shadow quad, Nars Duo Eyeshadow in Babylon, Ireland, and Island Fever.
Next row: Annabelle shadow single in #1400, Milani shadow singles in Moonlight, Sun Goddess, Golden Bronze and Java Bean; MAC shadow singles in Brule and Trax; Urban Decay shadow single in Kiss.
Next row: Sonia Kashuk shadow duo in Neutral Territory, the same MAC Sheertone blush in Blushbaby, Cargo blush in Catalina, MAC Lustre lipsticks in Sophisto and Viva Glam V.
Front row: Top to bottom: MAC Powerpoint eyepencils in Grey Utility and Permaplum; MAC Eye Kohl in Heirloom; Prestige Waterproof Automatic eyepencil in Expresso; MAC Powerpoint eyepencil in Bordeauxline; Diane Von Furstenberg Lipgloss Duet in Punch-Passion.
I didn't have a New York Times to put it on :) so I printed out today's Huffington Post blog.
Let's see. I have more stuff now. It's better stuff.
Of the eyeshadows, I doubt I'll ever see the bottom of any one of them. I have too many, I use them all, plus I use only small amounts at a time.
Ditto the two blushes; I don't wear blush every day.
The eyepencils now, that will depend on how well they keep. I have used up eyepencils in the past, but slowly. If they stay nice and soft for a few years...
Lipsticks--I do use these up, because I don't want to own too many of them.
Do I need more makeup?
Really, I don't.
My next plan is to repurchase the MAC shadow single in Vapour. The one I had before got kind of old and funny; the surface turned hard and not much product came off on my brush. Scraping the surface didn't help, so I Back to MAC'd it (see previous articles if you don't know what that is, or ask on the forums--it's free! :) ).
And, I would like a redder lipstick. My Viva Glam V is about half used up, so when that finally wears down to the nub, I won't immediately replace it. I'll try out something redder instead.
Is that too much makeup? Heck yeah. There are items here that I won't repurchase right away. But some items are key...the UD Kiss shadow, the black|Up quad, the Babylon duo, the Permaplum eyepencil, the blushes, yadda yadda....
I'll do more stash pics later on, for my perfume stash, my base face products, my hair stuff...see ya later and thanks for reading!
Minimalist thoughts
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, 2:12 AM (Eastern)
Thanks for the Armani quote (on the Fashion Blog). :) One of my favorite quotes is the following:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Albert Einstein
That--and, admittedly, "Measure twice, cut once"--are two key sayings in my own life.
It was Dain who introduced the concept of minimalism on the old Lipstick Page. At the time, I found the cosmetic world to be a massive confusing sprawl of products. It had simply never occurred to me that there was a way of narrowing them down.
I have settled down a lot since then. It was a combination of experimentation and reading others' experiences on beauty boards. I can tell you that beauty boards are not always purely about cosmetic acquisition. A good beauty board is more about introspection; how to look good without breaking the bank.
What I'll do is take some pics of my current stash (I haven't done this in a long time; it's been in the back of my mind). It's a good visual.
Oh, and there are two items I've been lemming. :) One is MAC Vapour eyeshadow. Can't live without it. The other is this mythic lipstick (I will check out the MAC Lustres and see if they don't have something like it)...it's...a sort of off-red with a brown base, sheerish, glossy (hence the investigation into Lustres first).
Labels: beauty notes, minimalism
A Return to Minimalism: Part 2
Posted by Dain, Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:44 AM (Eastern)
Frames for the Canvas
These are subtle elements—brows and eyelashes, skin, blush (which is a "color product", technically, but I prefer a natural flush, even if the products I turn to don't necessarily look so natural in the pot). They cannot be neglected, whether you like a natural or a more made-up look. In some ways, they are the most difficult aspect of make-up—plucking brows? curling lashes? foundation? a source of trepidation for many.
BROWS: My eyebrows are rather sparse, though not thin (they're not bushy, nor coarse, but they cover a fairly large area), so a bit of tweezing is all I really require from time to time. A good way to keep me at it is to leave a pair of tweezers near my desk, so I'll pluck them during lulls. I use Tweezerman's Slant tweezers, which are undeniably the best. I follow a more-or-less instinctual line (fairly thin, more straight than curved), but for most women, figuring out how to tweeze can be a hopeless conundrum. I suggest, then, that you have your brows professionally waxed (to your satisfaction, of course), and then keep the line clean with occasional pluckings.
If you've bushy brows, you'll might want to consider getting your brows trimmed. This is a job best reserved for professionals, but if you're handy, by all means—all you need is an eyelash comb and a pair of grooming scissors (the kind one sees to trim nose hairs). Any unruly hairs can be tamed with brow gel, or, in a pinch, some hair gel on a clean mascara comb, or even lip balm. If, like me, you're sparse, your task is a little easier (if you've got *very* thin brows, professional help, again, is best—you can get your eyebrows "threaded"). I like Maybelline's Twin Brow Pencil—in theory equitably an eyeliner, but I dismiss that as rank nonsense, this is fairly low in pigment and waxy—fantastic for brows, but horrid for eyelining. I use the shade "grey", a greyish taupe, a shade that would look natural, not garish, on 90% of brunettes and some darker blondes (there are plenty of shades, so take your pick). I also like Trish McEvoy Definer in Deep Aubergine for more intensity (and more of a "fill-in" effect), though that is originally intended for eyelining purposes (the plummy tint matches my hair well).
EYELASHES: This is not always a crucial step for everyone, but it is for me (my eyes are Asian, as is all the rest of me). I need to curl and use volumizing mascara both. I prefer the richest black I can find, though if you've nice lashes to begin with you might prefer a subtle plum (enhances green and blue eyes), a navy for brighter whites, or for a supersubtle look, a bronze (if you're a pale blonde). In any case, I've settled on L'Oréal Voluminous and Shu Uemura Eye Lash Curler, both longtime industry favorites. I curl my lashes, wipe off most (but not all) of the gunk on the mascara wand, and wiggle the wand through my lashes for a few coats. Simple enough.
SKIN: I don't like foundation. If I need to wear any, I'll make a concession to wear Aveda Dual Base Minus Oil (which I think is called something else now... "Inner Light" or something). It's a powder, so it's light, but looks very, very natural (not cakey), and gives superb coverage (you need only a little), is very cost-effective, and is scented mildly of rose. But... I prefer not to wear any at all, because I feel like it hides the natural glow of skin. I much prefer just to use concealer—YSL Touche Eclat, or Stephane Marais.
BLUSH: I'm very pale, and rather colorless (I'm not certain if I can blush, physically), so blush is an ABSOLUTE essential in my life. But I see little reason to own more than one blush. The best way to choose a blush is to pick one that matches your complexion—i.e. the color that best mimics blood rushing naturally to the skin—rather than your other makeup. In other words, it matches you. The task may have proven easier for me, however, because I tend to wear the same sort of rosy lipcolor always. I don't wear peachy blush not only because my skin doesn't care for it, but also because I don't wear warm or neutral lip tones. I steer clear of brown, neutral blushes, as well, because on my pale skin, they look muddy. Clear pink tones are best: NARS Desire, MAC Angel, Benetint, Stila Rose Convertible Color.
What am I currently using? NARS Mata Hari—true to form, a clear, pure bright pink, given a little bit of a sophisticated edge with mauve tones and a slight dustiness.
MAC POWERSURGE: And finally, I don't what this is categorized under, but since I nearly always wear this (as often as I wear blush—which is to say, always) and with everything, I don't think it qualifies as an "eye color product" but rather as a basic. It gives subtle definition, but isn't dark enough to compete with whatever powder liner I might layer over it. The gold is supremely flattering, and works as a sort of catalyst that allows incongruent shades to work together. In any case, this is a staple—more important than brushes, even.
Labels: minimalism
A Return to Minimalism: Part 1
Posted by Dain, Friday, May 27, 2005 4:02 PM (Eastern)
Good skin and hair, et cetera
I know, a tired tune. But good skin will carry... ohh... everything. Nice features, good bone structure, and symmetry (beauty, insofar as aesthetics are concerned, is largely based on symmetry, did you know that?) all play a role, but there's not much you can do about those except curse your genes or submit to plastic surgery. Hair and skin can be worked on.
Fortunately for me, genetics has worked in my favor, and I've realized that my hair and skin are just better left alone. This is a lesson long in the learning—which may seem strange enough, but not really—the cosmetics industry is very good at making you think you need products you do not, in fact, need. I have healthy skin and hair, and I suspect that most women do too, a strange confession to make, as I've been so well—for lack of a better word—trained otherwise. Maintenance, then, rather than treatment, is my goal.
I prefer botanicals overwhelmingly to chemicals, even though I've allergies to some botanical ingredients (particularly calendula). By chemicals, I mean wonder-compounds such as glycolic acid, vitamin c, retin A, oxygen, superlight silicones, peptide-complexes, salicylic acid, etc. The efficacy of most of these ingredients is well-documented, of course, but they're too much for my sensitive, very fine, rather dry skin. My skin absorbs such powerhouse ingredients all too readily, and since I don't really have skin problems per se, it simply overwhelms the system. It reacts with hyperactivity: excessive sensitivity, flakes, overproduction of sebum, acne, the like. I suspect this is true of many women. Filler ingredients (preservatives, emulsifiers, slip agents, the like), too, are better left out of the equation as much as possible. Sometimes they are helpful (usually not, otherwise they'd be deemed active ingredients), usually they are innocuous, sometimes they are harmful (comedogenic, for example). The purer the ingredients, and the less the product is concerned with feeling good, the better. It just works better that way. If you want to soften the effects of active ingredients, couch it in some aloe vera gel (for oily skin), or any number of emollients that hydrate and function as a barrier between skin and air. Think about it: if silicone-laced hair products coat your hair and result in build-up and dehydration, wouldn't the same effect be visible on your skin, where the products are left on?
Of course, the difficulty of botanicals is that there is no rhyme or reason to them. Most chemicals are well-documented in their benefit to skin and hair. Botanicals are looser. But I see a difference, a good one, so I'm not inclined to argue.
I've only recently extended this theory to hair. I thought, by using such products designed to provide "smooth and sleek" (Pantene), "sleek & shine" (Garnier), "smooth intense" (L'Oreal), etc., etc., I could otherwise tame whatever waywardness my otherwise healthy (though dry) hair might have. After all, if they are such reputed miracle-workers, would they not also give my hair the extra boost I so desire? This is erroneous thinking, I've come to realize. Healthy hair shouldn't be treated as unhealthy hair. It's like spurning the good son. I've been guilty of product overkill (I wasn't aware that one could do that with shampoos, say). How could such an obvious fact escape me? God knows.
In any case, here is my approach, voiced in products.
HAIR: One reason is that new, lightweight-silicone technology that prevails today feels really good to use. Temporarily, it seems to work miracles on your hair. The silicones are lightweight, so build-up is minimal, but nevertheless inevitable, and the products lose their efficacy after a while. In short, the brilliancy wears thin.
Enter, Nature's Gate. The original formula of the Herbal Hair Shampoo and Herbal Hair Conditioner has not changed in over 25 years. Antiquated, by cosmetics-industry standards. And I dare say, with good reason. The formulations are simple and no-nonsense, and use very little of the "filler" ingredients that make a conditioner feel rich and slippery (selfsame silicone technology, which leads to build-up), or a shampoo luxuriously lather (very stripping). The products are gentle but concentrated, and are perhaps a little less cosmetically elegant than what one might be used to—a sacrifice made for efficacy. The price is right, too. $4.65 for 18 oz—not the cheapest, but certainly not expensive.
And the scent! It's the most glorious earth-goddess scent, that lingers. I adore the scent (as does anyone I've made to sniff this product), but it is earthy and I can see some disliking it, for it is much in the vein of Aveda's line (this smells better than any Aveda shampoo I've sniffed, however... it's got a bit of spice to it).
As for styling, I don't style—my hair doesn't require it (it's straight... always. what am I really going to do with it?). It's better not to: by avoiding damage and product build-up. I think it's better to leave healthy hair to its own designs. I just soften the black a little with a little "wee brown", preferably L'Oréal Féria in Downtown Brown (a Hi-Lift Brown), which I like because it is a very cool brown and doesn't turn my hair reddish (most dyes turn my hair red), maybe just a hint.
SKIN: Ah. Simple. The laughingly old-fashioned régime of cleanser-toner-moisturizer (nigh medieval, it is). As supplied by Dr. Hauschka, wonderfully pure botanical formulae (not 100%, but as can be), that really address the way skin is structured and takes care of itself. Aye, it truly deserves the title of "holistic", in that the Dr. Hauschka system really attempts to maintain skin as a whole, a complex organ, and the products work in concert, rather than to treat individual problems as they arise (read my article on Dr. Hauschka for further details). I'm enamoured with the Cleansing Cream (undecided as to whether I prefer this or the Cleansing Milk), Facial Toner, and the Rose Day Cream (which I might not even need—the cleanser/toner combo work so well to promote healthy skin—but perhaps for drier, tenderer days). So simple (even if the products smell funkily alcoholic—strangely, I like the scent). Isn't that glorious?
Of course, my routine of before was simpler (Cetaphil and Better Botanicals Dandelion Moisturizer), but I'm curious to see if my skin improves under the Dr. Hauschka regimen. In any case, I am by no means restricted to using Dr. Hauschka in the future. I like the products, but as yet, I'm only undergoing a trial. I'm curious to try LUSH Ultrabland, for example. In any case, I do like the cleansing/toning of Dr. Hauschka, so I may stick with that, but I think I prefer my Better Botanicals—far more elegant, perfect amount of moisturization, lovely scent, same price (I'm on my fourth bottle, that says a lot).
BODY: Again, very simple. I'm not particularly interested in bath and body products, so it's just LUSH Alkmaar soap (I use various body washes at school, as soaps are impractical, currently I like Johnson's Softwash Extra Care, but I haven't yet met one that inspires loyalty) and Palmer's Cocoa Butter lotion (fragrance-free). Neither of which are particularly impressive, in the botanical vein I've been expounding for the past few pages, but I have lower standards as far as bath & body is concerned (it's fine, who cares?); I just want a soap that smells lovely (check), and a body lotion that penetrates even the driest winter skin into silky softness (check). For something pampering, there's nothing better than LUSH Butterball ballistics, which are just a joy to use.
Labels: minimalism
A Return to Minimalism: Introduction
Posted by Dain, Thursday, May 26, 2005 4:52 AM (Eastern)
Hmm... to my mind, a title like this sounds like the Odyssey. Roll your eyes, if you will, but the similitude is apt. Minimalism was the original tenet whereby I approached the cosmetic world, particularly because I hardly had the monetary wherewithal to spend as I pleased. It has only been in recent years that I've strayed from it, and now, as I watch my NARS duo collection (I have owned exactly twelve—Babylon, Rated R, Heaven, Dream Lover, Earth Angel, Rebecca, Cleo, Sundance, Sea Sex & Sun, Misfit, Key Largo, Elsa—at some point or another) blossom into insanity, I realize that it would do me well to return to it. Not that every single duo *isn't* a masterpiece in its own right (NARS duos do have a certain magical quality to them, a source of artistic inspiration always), but this is ridiculous.
It is much like how I crave Salt Works' nonfussy and cleanly cut jeans (the line prides itself as such), in this age of True Religion fervor. Even despite my preference for trousers, it is clear that there is nothing that simultaneously looks as good, but so easy to wear, as jeans. But all of this supercool, embellished, and very very very hip denim that glut the market these days? Meh. It turns me off, the way whorish makeup turns me off—overdone, unless you're Adriana Lima. Not that there's anything the least bit wrong with True Religions, but SuperHip jeans? Come on! They're jeans! They're supposed to be simple and nonchalant and comfortable and casual—a refreshing alternative to more restrictive clothing. I can only say, my fashion sense feels harried by the SuperHip-ness that seems to prevail these days over my denim. A great fit is one thing, embellishment is another.
In much the same vein, I'm gonna clean out my stash. Top to bottom. Remove it of unnecessaries. Ebay/swap what I do not want/will not use, keep what I admire but will not repurchase, and once this has all been set in motion, stick to that which I truly need and love. My stash could be worse, of course, but that is not the material point. No one really needs sixty (or so I imagine) shades of eyeshadow, save for makeup artists or those individuals who love to experiment (if you are the latter, I commend you... you deserve a big stash). But I am like most women (though I've got some pretensions towards makeup artistry), I use very few things, when you come down to the nitty-gritty, quotidian reality of it. I use very few things. Let us take a moment to censure my consumeristic tendencies: I use very few things. Let that humble you.
It's a rough process. The companies are very, very good at offering things you'll want (but may not need). And no one is ever completely satisfied with what they have. That's ok. Minimalism recognizes that stashes are ever a work-in-progress. Don't let such objections daunt you.
Labels: minimalism
Color Me In: Amy
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:45 AM (Eastern)
Yesterday, Amy and I were wandering fruitlessly through the mall, and we lit upon CVS. I was wandering around, looking for leather cleaner (for naught), when I saw the haircoloring aisle. Hmm... thought I, and hunted my friend down, who was absentmindedly perusing a magazine.
"How would you feel if I gave you a makeover?," I demanded.
She shrugged. "You've got good taste," she answered, a bit bored, "Do what you like."
Ah ha! I've been given license! We carefully looked at the boxes of haircolor, looking for that perfect shade of caramel to add warmth to her rather nondescript brown hair. We liked best L'Oreal's Couleur Experte in Praline, but I had heard some terrible things about the Couleur Experte (which was very expensive, anyway), so I suggested we merely look for something similar. In the end, we chose Clairol Nice 'n Easy 114A (lightest natural golden brown).
When we got home, I applied the formula (as instructions ordered), and when we rinsed it out, we were surprised (or perhaps we shouldn't have been) to find it not quite as the box represented it, but exactly what her hair needed—a subtle pick-me-up to add warmth and brilliance to her hair.
Her hair is naturally wavy, very long, and very fine, so I lambasted her hair well with Dove Define & Shine Hair Gel (to give definition to her natural waves, and add lots of shine), and then proceeded to work on her hair, inch by inch, with a curling iron, for the better part of an hour. Hardly a practical option, as far as she was concerned, but this was more to be a glamour-shot makeover than not. Since her hair is prone to frizz, I smoothed it over, at long last, with John Frieda Frizz-Ease Secret Weapon Styling Cream.
Amy has pale, acne-prone skin and grey-green eyes, so I opted for rich, sophisticated neutrals. First, I prepped her skin with Dr. Hauschka Rejeuvenating Mask, massaging it well into her skin. I used a hot towel to facilitate the absorption process, and to soften skin, and scrubbed her skin lightly with a viscose exfoliating cloth. Then I added more mask, until it was time to wash it off. To prime her skin, I used Caudalie Vinopulp Emulsion.
I cleaned up her brows (always makes a huge difference in one's appearance), and then set to on the makeup itself. Since we didn't have any foundations that matched Amy's skintone (I'm darker and yellower), we improvised by using mine (after all, I'm not *that* much darker): Stephane Marais Cream Foundation O0, and Aveda Dual Base Minus Oil in Aster. We added a pretty flush, using NARS Mata Hari blush.
The base done, I lined her eyes using MAC Powersurge (that perennial favorite), smudging over it Trish McEvoy Deep Aubergine Definer. This is a chocolate tone with a bit of plum, so it really drew attention to her green eyes, without screaming "color!" in any way. I used Trish McEvoy Praline Definer, a rose-mauve brown with gold shimmer, to soften the line, and in the crease. This turned out, also, to really bring out her green eyes, so thus far all was well. Then I used the pale, silvery mauve shade in Dior's Color Bouquet quint, on the lid, to blend and soften the crease color. I could have just as easily used Dior Mauve Chic—which I do not have... yet—and it would have been just as flattering, albeit cooler-toned. And a dash of mascara (L'Oreal Voluminous Full Definition) to finish things off.
Finally, the lips. I used MAC O lipstick, which is a shade that rather defies description, so I suggest you consider the reviews of it that are elsewhere on this site. And a little Revlon Raisin Glaze lipgloss, to soften the shimmer and add some pretty shine, on top.
Voila! C'est fini!
Here are the before and after shots (some very slight retouching has been done, on the "after", to smooth out uneven skin... alas, nothing in this world looks like flawless skin, save flawless skin):
Labels: color me in
Beauty Notes: Hauling (5.23.05)
Posted by Dain, Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:26 PM (Eastern)
A very quick haul indeed, nothing too impulsive, but long premeditated and honed. I'm trying to minimalize my stash, after a bout of manic Dior-shadow ebay-ing, and look for more versatile products that give a more polished, sophisticated look.
Trish McEvoy Eye Definer, Deep Aubergine $15: A lovely plum-stained, dark brown matte. It is, if you will, as if your cup of expresso has been flavoured with plum jam—perhaps not the greatest gastronomic experience, to be sure—but colorwise very intriguing. Who would this not flatter? Even someone such as I, who usually loathe browns, find this fantastic. The plum makes it special, and the product itself, "definer" as it is, is pigment-intense. As always, I like to layer it over Powersurge, but layering it over Heirloom (a silvery lavender) works equally well, and makes it cooler and more purple-y.
Trish McEvoy Eye Definer, Praline $15: You can use it as a soft liner, but it works better as a crease color. I got it because I liked the idea of having something to soften the line after Deep Aubergine. It's a complex color—rose-mauve shimmer muted brown with flecks of gold—similar to MAC Trax but more neutral and softer (softer on shimmer, softer on red, etc.). Lovely! I like it on the lid with Deep Aubergine, because it adds depth without looking the least bit harsh—an admirable feat, by my books.
NARS Mata Hari blush: I didn't purchase this, per se, just exchanged it. I had had Orgasm before—a lovely color, but the shimmer was too much for me, and I suspect it may have been breaking me out. Mata Hari I've always steered clear from, not because it seemed unflattering (indeed, it'd be exactly the sort of color that would be perfect for me), but because it seemed so very similar to NARS Desire. But under assurances that Mata Hari was cooler, dustier, mauvier, I tried it. And I'm glad I did. This may actually replace Desire in my heart, an unthinkable feat! This is still a clear, brilliant color (too many neutral tones tend to turn to mud on my skin, so I prefer clarity over subduedness), a bright pink at heart, but it's ever so slightly softer—slightly dustier, and made a little cooler with the addition of a tiny mauve undertone. Like Desire, it may easily be overdone, but as it is, this is perfection on my Snow White complexion (dark hair and eyes, pale skin). Just a flattering, natural flush.
YSL Rouge Pure Shine No°3 Precious Garnet $26: O. Wow. Don't be shocked at the price tag. You get your money's worth. Never before has a lipstick offered so much. Superglamorous packaging (you'd have to see it to believe it)—blinding gold tube that subs as a mirror under dire straits, with a YSL-logo cutout that lets you see automatically what color you're reaching for (so much nicer than the black dildoesque stylings of MAC's lipsticks). The formula? Sublime. It's a semi-sheer (more pigment that MAC Lustres, I'd say) with a semi-gloss shine (it's hardly lip gloss, don't let the name mislead you), as moisturizing as lip balm. It has a pleasant peachy scent (not the usual YSL rose). As for the color, I adore it. It's a dead-on replacement for MAC's limited-edition Red Haute lustre lipstick—it looks plummier in the tube, and it hasn't as much "sparkle", less pink-red rosiness and more neutrality, and is overall a more simple color, but it's very close. Close enough, when Red Haute has been discontinued (Red Haute is my favorite lipstick shade, period). Now I want more! I had the hardest time choosing between Precious Garnet and shade No°8, Plum Fusion, which is a polished, plummy sort of shade—gorgeous, what I always think MAC Sophisto is going to look like before I'm disappointed by its watery sheer mauve.
L'Occitane Incense Sticks, Miel $16: And I almost forgot! I got these, which have the same lovely scent of the L'Occitane Eau de Miel, except smoky where the perfume is green. It's wonderful. I had been using the Eau de Miel to scent my sheets (because as a fragrance, lovely as it is, it lasts all of half an hour), as a sort of refreshing way to scent my room, but now here's something infinitely more exciting, more cost-effective, and just overall more effective.
Labels: beauty notes, hauling, l'occitane, nars, trish mcevoy, ysl
More on sheers...
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:15 PM (Eastern)
I suppose I'm too old to think of any trend in a linear fashion, anymore. Once you've seen the same thing happen over and over and over again, you tend to think more in circular terms.
From Tanya Tucker to Jodie Foster to Brooke Shields to Annabella Lwin to Tiffany, from Lolita herself (I know, the novel was a metaphor...but humor me, for the sake of argument)...you're already talking about decades of so-called youth obsession.
One thing that annoys me...I can admit it...is Hollywood. You will not see any actress in a Hollywood movie, who is forty years old. It annoys me because I'll start liking some actress; I'd like to follow her work...then she disappears after a few years in a puff of cigar smoke. Incredibly annoying.
The sheers...I suspect the origin of the sheers is something along the lines of speed. Sheer products are faster and easier to apply. They don't require precision to look good. Plus, we on the beauty boards have been griping about the lack of sheers for years. I myself have melted lipsticks and mixed them with melted lip balm, for the sake of sheerness. Many have applied lipstick over lip balm for the same reason.
I applaud the sheer lipsticks...and the concept of wearing sheer foundation. Why not? You have to wear sunscreen anyway. I'm more intrigued by the notion of obscuring flaws than I ever was of concealing them.
I think these both are direct responses to consumer demand.
Anything else though...? Nothing else should be sheer.
Beauty Notes: Diagnosis of a Trend: Sheer Makeup
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:55 AM (Eastern)
There are nothing but sheer lipsticks these days. Witness: Dior Addict Ultra Shine Sheer Lipcolor, Smashbox Tinted Lip Treatment, YSL Pure Shine, Paula Dorf Lip Color Sheer Tint SPF 15, MAC Lustre, Lancome Juicy Rouge, Bloom Lip Tint, LORAC Sheer Lipstick, Vincent Longo Gel-X Lipstick, Delux Sheer Lipstick, Chanel Aqualumière, Bobbi Brown SPF 15 Lip Shine, Clinique Almost Lipstick (one might say, the first), Clinique Colour Surge Bare Brilliance Lipstick, Clinique Moisture Sheer Lipstick SPF 15, Estée Lauder Pure Color Lip Vinyl Gloss Stick, Origins Rain and Shine, Prescriptives Incredible Sheer Lipcolor SPFT 15, Awake Stardom Sheer Glossy, MAC Tinted Lip Conditioner, Kevyn Aucoin Lip Tint, Lola Lip Sheer, Chantecaille Super Lip Sheers and Lip Sheers, Maybelline Wet Shine, Revlon Moisturous, Laura Mercier Sheer Lipcolor (the "Lips" collection), Versace... oh, forget it. You get the point.
Not all sheer lipsticks are created equal, of course. Some are little more than tinted lip balm, some meant to be a glamorous wet-shine sheer (YSL Pure Shine, MAC Lustre, Chanel Aqualumière, Dior Addict Ultra Shine Sheer, for example), some merely a lipstick with low-dose pigment, but the message remains the same. Women everywhere are demanding sheerer colors, all around.
It's not just lipsticks, either. Foundations must never be cakey, the de rigueur finish is translucent, like Giorgio Armani's foundations or Becca. Powders, too, like Prescriptives Magic, or airy Stephane Marais', whisper sheer. Eyeshadows have become silkier, ultrablendable, whisperlight (MAC Veluxe). Even lipliner, once a bastion of cosmetic collections the world over, which has now been banished as unnecessary and stilted (indeed, how much use is a lipliner when your lipstick barely registers?), is attempting a comeback, by becoming sheer (Stila, Prescriptives).
Part of the reason for this shift is the current cultural obsession with youth. Not that American pop culture has ever been otherwise, but nowadays, the phenonmenon is greater than before. Just look at the meteoric rise of supermodel Gemma Ward—an angelic, doll-faced beauty straight out of a Vermeer painting who also happens to look fabulous in couture, sure, but she also looks like she's going on twelve (as it is, she's seventeen). Contrast her, and other such Lolita figures such as Scarlet Johanson and Hilary Duff, to the models of only ten years ago: Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington, Linda Evangelista, Elizabeth Hurley. All of the latter are beautiful women, with strong, polished features rather than a fragile delicacy, the prettiness of a girl just growing into her teens.
If our understanding of female beauty changes, so too, do the products that make her beautiful. A young girl looks garish in full makeup—we've all heard that adage. Transparent colors work far better, and shimmers flatter. An older woman, or shall we say, a woman, can take the abuse of product accumulation. Or, according to 90s standards, actual makeup instead of the ghost of an encounter. Indeed, more definition, more contours, more depth, more work, more complexity, are probably better for a woman's features (if that's not a metaphor for maturity, I don't know what is!). Luminosity is better reserved for the young. Gone are the pigment-rich liquid foundations and cake make-up, the heavy matte shadows (sheer shimmers sell soon; the fortunes of Stila's empire was built upon that axiom), the luxurious cream lipsticks, to be replaced by Vincent Longo Water Canvas and Becca Luminous Skin Color, the aforementioned Stila shadows, and the cavalcade of sheer lipsticks with which we started on this mad journey.
Of course, there is another factor. Given the choice, we'd all rather be lazy than not. Improvements in pigment quality, and above all, the new technology of superlightweight silicones, has allowed product designers to push sheer products as versatile and easy and expedient to use. Sheer is low-maintenance, not only because it's sheer, but also because the products blend better.
This train o' thought all started one evening, as I was experimenting rather forlornly with a lipstick. A few years ago, this was "normal", a MAC Satin lipstick. A regular creamy sort of lipstick, with no shimmer. It's almost exotic to me now. One could dash it on, of course, with technical abandon, but it would be far better to use a lipbrush to apply it, for more control. A lipliner wouldn't hurt, either (not that I had one). I applied it with a brush. It was almost ritualistic, and more than a little erotic. It took a lot longer. But I felt empowered. It's like the difference between wearing a flirty ruffled mini and a sexy, curvaceous pencil skirt. Or the difference between flip-flops and a pair of Christian Louboutin pumps.
Don't get me wrong, I love my sheer lipsticks. They're marvelous fine. It's enough that I put on undereye concealer/highlighter every morning, much less incorporating a bloody concealer-foundation-powder rite into it. And hey, I couldn't live without my Red Haute lipstick (a MAC lustre). But perhaps we can take a lesson from our selves ten years ago, and reckon, maybe, as our faces recover from that facial peel we had last Thursday, that sophistication is nothing to sneer at.
And hey, my Mauve Chic quint is coming in the mail. Pair that with MAC Angel blush and real lipstick, and I'm halfway there. ; )
Labels: beauty notes, philosophy
Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #4
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Tuesday, May 17, 2005 4:22 PM (Eastern)
And finally--eyeliner colors for green eyes. I favor pencils over liquids or gels, hence my recs are all pencils, but I will describe the colors in intimate detail so you can find something similar in whatever form you choose.
The queen of green-eye liners has got to be MAC "Permaplum" Powerpoint eyepencil. This is a deep, blue-based purple with a tiny bit of pink shimmer (the shimmer doesn't show much on).
I prefer this ever so slightly above MAC "Bordeauxline" Powerpoint, but it is close. Bordeauxline is more a deep, neutral purple with a delicate red-wine tone.
Part of the virtue of these two picks, is that neither is brown-based. They are both deep, true purples rather than the "raisin" color one often finds (and which imo works better on hazel eyes than green).
The Powerpoints go on very smoothly; I abhor hard pencils. They do last on all day under most conditions, ergo they are somewhat harder to remove at the end of the day.
If your overall coloring is cool, then I would recommend MAC "Heirloom" Eye Kohl. This looks pretty on me, mind you, but I suspect it's far more stunning on those with cooler coloring.
Heirloom is a fusion of silver and lavender. The Eye Kohl formula also glides on, but fades more quickly than the Powerpoints (it still lasts respectably, just not next to indefinitely) and is therefore easier to remove.
Green eyes can also do with a deep brown eyepencil. Personally I see nothing wrong with picking up a drugstore one; there are several formulas that tend to get raves on beauty boards...Prestige Automatic Waterproof (I own this in "Expresso"), Max Factor Pensilks, the Cover Girl automatic one, etc.
Beyond these basics...there are many liners I've never tried but suspect would work...MAC Teddy, Prunella, Tarnish, etc. What I look for is a red, bronze, gold, brown, or purple tone.
Again, your overall coloring enters into it. If you're cool, I'd rec the Heirloom, Permaplum, Tarnish (this is a very dark green with gold sparkle).
If you're warm, then do try Permaplum, Bordeauxline, Grey Utility (I own this; it's neutral dark grey with a slight purple-blue tone, goes great with your blue-grey shadows).
I suspect Teddy, Prunella and Powersurge would work for either coloring--respectively, intense red-coppery shade, deep greyed purple? I'd have to swatch this again, and bronze-brown with gold shimmer.
Beauty Notes: Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe (Browns and Nudes)
Posted by Dain, 12:17 AM (Eastern)
Nothing's more basic, right? These are shades that quite virtually mimic the natural tones of skin, lending variation and depth to the simplest of colors.
Actually, none of this is true. First off, brown is NOT a simple color. It's a complex mix of impure tones, and it requires a mixture of all the primary colors (red, blue, and yellow) to come into being (if you had pure pigments in equal measure, the resulting mixture would be black, not brown, but this is hard to do... there's always some impurity). The variations are nearly endless: there are peachy browns, mauvey browns, grey browns, greenish browns, golden browns, rose browns, ruddy browns, plum browns, orange browns... god, you name it. And you can always make it pastel, so that you have beige in all its incarnations, add whatever veneers of shimmer and frost you like, or even make it metallic. (For a more complete consideration of the various colors within this family, I've written an article about color on Beautystreet.)
Secondly, if any experience with foundation has told you anything at all, there is no such thing as a true "skin" verisimilitude. Nothing looks like real skin like real skin. Brown and beige makeup is poetic license; it is nude, rather than bare. It is—how shall we say it?—heightened reality, an exaggeration of nature's colors.
And last: I can't wear browns for the life of me!
I don't particularly know why; my hypothesis is that I'm too pale, my eyes too Asian (it doesn't take well to eyeshadow in general, unless it is done sheer), but it doesn't really make sense, really. In any case, I can wear beiges just fine (I've a fond love for champagnes of all types), but browns... browns look dirty on me, no matter how well-balanced. Too warm, and it's ruddy. Too cool, and I look like I've rubbed my eyes in gravedirt. Too shimmery, and... well, that's always rather silly looking. Even neutral shades have got too much red, too much grey... some very inimicable to my coloring. Gad, who knows? It's a tough terrain to traverse, so mine are very, very carefully chosen, and must pass the rigorous test of not looking like sh*te on me (perhaps I mean that literally).
Anyway, it's a short list:
gilt champagne: NARS Cyprus
peachy nude matte: NARS Key Largo
sheer bronze gleam: NARS Key Largo
nutty brown shimmer: MAC Rich Ground Fluidline (not sure about this)
plum-stained dark brown: Trish McEvoy Aubergine
Labels: beauty notes, mac cosmetics, nars, trish mcevoy
FOTD
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Monday, May 16, 2005 6:09 PM (Eastern)
FOTD is a term you're likely to find on any cosmetically-oriented Internet beauty forum. It stands for Face of the Day...but what is that, really?
By the time I started posting on the old Lipstick Page forum in 1998, they already had FOTD threads. I can admit I found it fascinating, that anyone would post such a thing.
Then again, back in those days, I wore exactly the same makeup every day...some form of L'Oreal foundation, two eye pencils...a dark brown one and a lighter brown one to smudge over it...blush (Maybelline), and a Cover Girl LipSlick.
Some of that has changed since then :)...I've gone through many different brands and types and shades. I came to see the point of the FOTD thread. For me it's less a matter of simply coming up with more and more and more different ways of wearing cosmetics; quite the contrary. I read the thread mostly to see what products actually get used, day in and day out.
 Welcome to the boiler room that is my office |
My FOTD tends to be very simple. Here is what I'm wearing today. It's a base of tinted sunscreen (which I make myself; it's sunscreen with a little liquid foundation mixed in) and MAC Blot pressed powder in "medium."
On my eyes, I put the #1 shade in a black|Up eyeshadow quad. The quad label was in French; I've no idea what the name of the quad is...it's a yellow-gold shade (the one I'm wearing), plus an orange matte, deeper orange with some rose and brown, and a deeper, rosy brown shade with a tad of orange...would be great for green or blue eyes.
Then I put MAC Bordeauxline Powerpoint eyepencil on, outer upper lids only. This is a staple shade for me (that, and MAC Permaplum Powerpoint). Bordeauxline is a deep neutral purple with a little bit of red in it.
Then MAC Sophisto Lustre lipstick. Easy enough to see in the pic; it's something of a berry color, sheer, with some shimmer.
The face takes less than five minutes to put on; tinted sunscreens or moisturizers blend quickly (and are sheer enough not to show goofs). MAC Blot is my holy grail face powder; it's ideal for oily skin and doesn't need to be touched up, except on very hot or humid days.
The yellow-gold shade is one of my favorites these days...it matches my hair, and also brings out the blue and green in my eyes. Deep purple liner is a must-have for green eyes, and the Powerpoints do last well, as they are supposed to. (Pencil liner is also the quickest form of liner to apply; use several small strokes, and soften the line with the warmth of a clean fingertip.)
Sophisto is relatively new to my stash, but it's my third MAC Lustre lipstick (after Jubilee and Viva Glam V). Once I find a formula I like, I stick with it. The Lustres are sheer (how I like 'em), but they last on as long as most full coverage lipsticks. The price is right ($14)...not cheap, exactly, but then how long does it take to use one up? I've been doing a two-lipstick stash for quite some time, and even then it takes years.
That's it!
For fun, I had the idea of pulling up my FOTD post of one year ago. That idea flopped since May 16, 2004 was a Sunday and I wasn't online that Sunday. However here is what I wore that Monday, May 17.
* usual base face
* MAC Shroom as a wash
* L'Oreal Le Grand Kohl in "Raisin" (rediscovering this)
* MAC Blushbaby blush
* MAC Viva Glam V lipstick
Hm. I no longer own Shroom (it dried out and got funny and I didn't replace it) or the L'Oreal pencil (likewise). I'd say my shadows and liners are better this year than last. I still have the other stuff.
Beauty Notes: Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe (The Foundation)
Posted by Dain, 3:15 AM (Eastern)
There's really nothing so much fun as eye makeup. Base makeup, it's rather disheartening, you're concealing flaws and adding radiance to lusterless skin. Lips, I'm the kind of gal that tend to buy lippies that are merely variations on a theme: rosy lips, like the classic English rose complexion. Even shades as diverse as Trish McEvoy Celebrate Lipgloss, Biotherm Glossy Shine #155, and MAC Red Haute, when you boil them down (since they all wear sheerer than they may appear in the tube), is just a sort of rose/redcurrant stain. Redcurrant, oy, let's not get into how many products I own along that vein. In short, it's pretty boring, what lip products I use. I like a certain look and I don't stray too far. Eyeshadow, however, is a whole 'nother story.
One is constrained by limitations, of course, and I am no exception. I've got lovely, symmetrical, almond-shaped eyes, but there's no crease, and my lashes are short, straight, and sparse. This means I've got to make up for my lash deficiency, and I can't do much fancy creasework (i.e. much fancy lidwork at all). I can wear sheer washes on the lid, I can wear heavier "wedges" (a concentration of shadow on the outer lashline), and I can wear pastels (but I don't really like pastels), but that's about it. Mostly, I wear a sheer shadow on the lid, and it's up to the liner to shoulder the burden of color and definition (which is fine with me, since it emphasizes my lashes). I need a very light hand indeed; it's very easy to make me look overdone.
In any case, there are certain essential products I use with every look, regardless of color, effect, finish, or style. They create a "base", a proper canvas on which to paint as I would.
undereye concealer: YSL Touche Eclat! Of course. Nothing spoils a well-done eye like circles. This is sublime (as I've said so many time before), and it's not... fake-looking. Sometimes, one can be a little overzealous about concealing (too light, too much coverage), and a complete absence of shadow (it is, after all, an area of your skin that is naturally darker, as well as physically shadowed by a bulge above, i.e. your eye) screams faux. Hm. At least to the well-trained eye. Others I like: Stephane Marais, Dior Diorlift, Origins Quick, Hide!
mascara and lash curler: As far as I'm concerned, one does not fly without the other. It's pointless to curl your lashes without putting on mascara, and my straight lashes look faintly ridiculous without mascara. I use the famed Shu Uemura Lash Curler (I really couldn't care less what I use, though), and L'Oreal Voluminous Mascara, which isn't a grail, but I think that's more my attitude regarding mascara. It's an essential step, but I don't put much sacrament into it. The fun is in the shadows.
brows: Tweezerman (I use the slanted ones), and Maybelline Twin Brow Pencil, Charcoal Grey... a well-groomed brow is the linchpin of a well-groomed face, end o' story.
MAC Powersurge Eye Kohl: I'm quite uncertain what to label this as... this far surpasses "eyeliner" is sheer use and essentialness and versatility. I wear it with almost everything (see article below). It's an antiqued bronze, slightly olive tinged, with plenty of gold sparkling o'er. Gold has a fluid quality on the skin: it allows discordant shades to harmonize, adds warmth to cool shades, and softens dark colors. Powersurge adds subtle definition on its own (lovely to see the gold peeking through one's lashes), but it's even better in combination. Not only, as a color, does it give harmony to an eye look, but its creamy base works well as a base under powder liner—neither of which are that tenacious on their own, but wear very well in combination.
brushes: It's important to be picky about the tools that you use (since they make a huge different on how shadows and such will wear), so this is one area that I suggest you not scrimp and save on. I use, myself, Paula Dorf Eyeshadow as a wash/blending brush, Paula Dorf Smudge for more intensity, Trish #11 and an old angled flat liner from Garden Botanika for lining. Fingers and sponge-tip applicators have their place, of course, though I don't use the latter. Sponge-tip applicators are great for intense color, while fingers do a better job making sparkly and glittery shadows really "stick".
Labels: beauty notes, eyes, l'oreal, mac cosmetics, maybelline, shu uemura, tweezerman, ysl
Beauty Notes: Hauling (5.14.05)
Posted by Dain, Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:11 PM (Eastern)
NARS Key Largo ($30): I've been on something of a manhunt for browns lately. I don't wear browns well, even the most well-balanced ones look more than little like dirt on my skin. Well, look no further, because I've found a perfect duo of peachy-nude matte (with a very subtle sheen, so that it doesn't go flat) and a gleaming bronze shimmer, dusted lightly with gold. Ok, not quite perfect, if the bronze had a teeny bit less red and a slight olive tinge, 'twould be absolute perfection..... but it still looks good. I was going a little crazy, because I wasn't sure which set of browns would be best (from Dior), but Key Largo has a definite fitness (a "rightness") that Caliente or Brun Casual or Beige Massai do not have. That is to say, whatever am I going to do with five browns? I wouldn't ever wear a brown alone, but as a complement (adds warmth to violets, softens blues, perfect with greens, etc.), so how many of them could I possibly need? Nay, this is perfect: a nudeish base shade and a shimmer wash of bronze. (This would work better on someone who doesn't have pale skin, as I do, and would be absolutely stunning on blue eyes, and a little less stunning on green eyes, but it'd work on anyone.)
NARS Sea, Sex, & Sun ($30):
Oy, the name says it all. Actually, I don't know what sex has got to do with it, but it's certainly got sea and sun in it: a gorgeous celadon green sheen, almost bordering on sage (but it's sheer, so only in the pan), with a subtle gold shimmer, and a sheer, warm, slightly greenish gold, not a harsh metallic frost, but a nigh holographic translucence, very soft. I need a gold in my collection, and this is so soft it never looks harsh (when's the last time I've been able to pile on shadow on my lids? that's right, never.), and I've been waiting for NARS to come out with a celadon for ages. It's about time (there are limes, apple greens, mints, aquamarines, olives, forest greens, etc., but nary a celadon in sight)! A beautiful duo, the pictures don't do it justice. They're just what you might expect, sans blue, of a seascape drenched in hot sunlight—leeched, worn, tired colors, but all the more flattering because the colors are soft, not harsh.
NARS Lido ($20): This is lovely, a violent shade of vivid purple shimmer in the pan, a sheer halo of greyed violet shimmer gleaming pink, almost lavendery, on the lid. Much like MAC Parfait Amour, but much prettier, in cream eyeshadow form. I'm on the fence on this one, though. If I get Dior Seascape, it may be redundant to have yet another violet lid shade, and I'm not really a fan of cream shadows. We'll see!
Labels: beauty notes, eyes, hauling, nars
Beauty Notes: Dior 5-Color Eyeshadow
Posted by Dain, 12:56 AM (Eastern)
At $49.90, they're an investment, but the quality is absolutely unsurpassed. Some are discontinued, so might only be found on ebay or discount stores, but you might want to check out ebay anyway, because you'll be able to find them for quite a bit cheaper. Some have simply been repackaged and renamed (I don't know if the shades are exactly the same, but they've retained the numbers), but the ones that are currently available, in stores, are in bold. For a picture of the quint, click on select numbers.
010 The Roses
020 Exceptional Beige
030 Nude/Incognito
??? The Browns
062 Street Sweet
080 Basic Chic
100 Festive Browns
120 Almost Midnight
160 ?????
170 Bleu Denim
202 Images: soft goldenrod shimmer (Ajonc/Bloom), electric blue shimmer (Horizon), rich dark purple shimmer with pink flecks and a slight grey undertone (Bruyère/Heather), vibrant emerald green shimmer with a subtle blue sheen (Colvert/Mallard), smooth soft charcoal (Granite)
203 Midnight
205 Extreme Blue
210 The Mauves
250 Seascape
260 Logomania
310 Color Bouquet: creamy ivory with the subtlest sheen, white with mint iridescence, gorgeous gunmetal shimmer with violet tones, softly shimmery rose-mauve, shimmery teal muted with a little grey
350 Airy Greens
380 ?????
402 ?????
450 Chiffon Petals
460 Jade Night
502 Sables
510 Gala Night
530 Dolce Vita
580 Velvet Woods
601 Drawing
650 Caliente
660 Contemporary Browns
670 Clubbing
680 Earthglow
701 Fiction
705 Discretion/Beige Massai
710 ?????
714 ?????
730 Street Casual/Brun Casual
760 Patchworkmania
780 Mauve Chic
803 Bleu Blanc Rouge
810 ?????
820 Moonray
830 Silk Clouds/Urbanity
840 Rose Gipsy
860 Flowermania
880 Gris VIP
900 Desert Sky
902 Final
905 Pearl
916 Pansies
920 All Softness
930 Kawai
940 Tropical
??? Before the Dawn
??? Autumn Equinox
??? Spice
This will be continually updated, and at some point I'll add descriptions.
Labels: beauty notes, dior, eyes
Beauty Notes: Obsessions (5.13.05)
Posted by Dain, Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:13 AM (Eastern)
They're not quite holy grails, but they are de rigueur, current obsessions.
L'Oréal Voluminous mascara: It's an industry mainstay for a reason. Unlike more liquid-y, silicone-y formulae (there is a Full Definition Voluminous out, if silicones are more your thing), your tube doesn't dry out before the month is out, and the intensity is easily manipulated, from just enough oomph for a little definition, to lush, thick, full lashes. Somehow, I suspect it's not intended for the mascara dunce, but wipe off excess product beforehand, and you ought to be fine. (Shu Uemura's famed lash curler is a must.)
YSL Touche Eclat: Such a frustrating product, because it is a bacteria magnet, not to mention really, really expensive ($36 for a concealer is ludicrous), but it's undeniably glamorous, and absolutely NOTHING works as well as it does. It blows all other concealers out of the water. I'm surprised there are knockoffs at all... how can oth