The Lipstick Page Forums Beauty 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) Email this post

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!

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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).

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Makeover! My good friend, 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):

0 Comment(s) Email this post

What I bought today (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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

New waters, new... shampoo?
Posted by Dain, Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:30 PM (Eastern)

It seems like it wouldn't make much difference, but the hardness of your water has a lot to say about the state of your hair. I live in two places, a suburb near Boston, and in a dorm in New Haven. The water at my Boston home is quite soft in comparison, and shampoos and conditioners that worked brilliantly at Yale suddenly fall flat. The most notable example is Dove Moisture Intense, which worked fine (albeit a little stripping) until I returned home for vacation, and it was so harsh I could hardly believe my eyes. It turned my hair into straw.

But recently, I've noticed a similar trend with my beloved Garnier Long & Strong system. It hasn't become more harsh, thankfully, but it is a bit heavy and deposits a silicone-build-up (which hadn't occurred before). Odd how that works. In any case, I need to search for something lighter, which is fine by me, since I never liked the smell of the Garnier to begin with. Where will my eyes turn next? Nature's Gate Herbal Hair Shampoo and Conditioner, an old formula from the seventies (I think), without any of the newfangled silicones, and a tempting, earth-goddess scent of myrrh. Plus, it's $4.95 each for an 18 oz bottle, which seems like a damn good deal to me (it's not cheap, but I could be paying $20 for Terax after all! Also comes in 8 oz size).

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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. ; )

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe: Part Two, 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

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe: Part One, 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".

0 Comment(s) Email this post

What I bought today (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!

0 Comment(s) Email this post

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.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Things I'm loving now (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 other companies have such temerity? Not only does it erase fatigue with flawless ease and superior verisimilitude of naturally acquired sleep, it does it better than anything else. Ever. And it doesn't look like makeup!

Garnier Fructis Long & Strong system: Perhaps I'm not enamored with this line as I was a month before, and I'm really not a fan of fake-fruity scents, but I maintain what I've said before: "Why buy salon brands when you can have Garnier?" For the best hair ever (at least, if you've hair like me, dry, straight, and colored), all the cardinal points of the hair mantra: silky, shiny, soft, and smooth. 'Nuff said.

Balenciaga Cristobal EDP: When's the last time you fell in love at first sniff? For me, it was years ago, with Givenchy Organza Indécence. This, according to description (light-hearted and sparkling fruits and florals more dominant than my traditional vanilla-amber), ought to be something I dislike, at best mediocre. Not so. I don't merely think it's "a pretty scent" (as so many editors will advocate), I adore it, I think it's gorgeous top to bottom. From the beautiful bottle, to the way it melts into my skin, etc, etc.

Dr. Hauschka: See obstreperous article below. The old-fashioned simplicity of a cleanser, toner, moisturizer routine (Cleansing Milk, Facial Toner, Rose Day Cream), done with granola-crunching aplomb. Really, it's got the holistic approach down ("emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts, rather than analysis or separation into parts"). Maybe I'll get tired of it, but for now, I'm loving it.

Dior 5-Color Eyeshadow in Mauve Chic (780): I don't know what it is about Pati Dubroff, but every time she raves over a product I always want it (eg. Nuxe Rêve de Miel, By Terry Apricot Skin Enhancer, Shiseido Ruby Luster Lip Gloss). And now this. Actually, the desire for the soft mauves and purples of this quint came at about the right time. I've been getting bored of the intensely pure but watercolor sheer of the NARS shadows I've been sporting (Fresh and chic, to be sure, but how many different ways can you wear Rated R? No matter how you revise it, it's still an acid-tone lime and an electric blue.). Enter the sophisticated Dior Mauve Chic, just the thing for my fix for things ladylike.

Guerlain Terracotta Gloss & Shine in Terre des Sables: Darlings, you haven't experienced gloss until you've tried these by Guerlain. From shades that are truly complex, but highly flattering (they become one with your natural lip tone), to a high-gloss shimmery shine that makes lips pouty as can be, they are truly dynamite. Terre des Sables is a beautiful compilation of all the different ways to approach nude via shimmer: rose, peach, gold, pink, mauve, even teeny bit o' silver. Plus, it's pretty packaging, even if it is a little plain.

L'Oréal Tone Refiner, Brunette: Per'aps there isn't much to say about hair gloss (this is not a silicone serum, but a treatment that lasts about thirty days), but I'm addicted to the idea. It adds polish (both in the sense of sophistication and shine), and makes hair really smooth and glossy (less maintenance), and gives delicate hair protection. It's a simple, five-minute procedure, and it just gives you... a good feeling, a sort of grooming peace-of-mind.

Image courtesy www.sephora.com.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Dr. Hauschka, holistic skincare
Posted by Dain, Friday, May 13, 2005 3:46 PM (Eastern)

I'm always on the hunt for the perfect skincare routine. It has always been a seminal obsession for me, when it comes to all things cosmetic. I've heard about Dr. Hauschka, on and off, for the past few years, and my curioisty was sparked when Claire Forlani raved about the line in In Style quite a while back. But, it was a little beyond my budget at the time, so curious I remained. The first product I ever tried was a sample vial of the Normalizing Day Oil, which I really liked (made skin clear and vibrant, lovely smell), but obviously not enough to purchase it.

And then, about a year ago, a very helpful SA gave me a few samples more. I realize now that she gave me the wrong ones for my skin type, but I didn't like them the time. The Cleansing Milk was too rich, the Clarifying Toner too strong (and I had an allergic reaction to it), and the Quince Day Cream, though lovely, not enough to handle the overunctuous/overharsh combination of the cleanser and toner. "Not for me," I surmised, "All those celebrities are idiots."

And then, again. Daria Werbowy worships the Quince Day Cream (from two sources, even), and as for the Rose Day Cream, the list of devotees is staggering: Kate Moss, Madonna, Cate Blanchett, Helena Christensen, Jerry Hall, Jade Jagger, Stella McCartney, Daryl Hannah, Cher. And my skin was rasping a little after a bout of something mysterious attacking my skin (clear and pure as a summer sky for months, and then suddenly, clogged pores! Where did they come from? Not even La Prairie's The Retexturizer seemed to make headway—in fact, it made them worse.). "Alright," I grumbled, I still have some of that Cleansing Milk left over. I'll try it, but with my Neutrogena toner, not that one that gives me a rash."

And I looked better. Loads better, actually. A little pink, but better.

Surely I was onto something. For the past two years, I've used nothing but Cetaphil and Better Botanicals Dandelion Moisturizer, with a brief fling with LUSH Angels on Bare Skin during this past summer (which I really loved using, though I'm slightly allergic to this one, too), and Decléor Baume Essentiel or Biotherm Biosensitive Anti-Redness Concentrate to smooth o'er rough spots when my skin was particularly frazzled. And my skin, for the most part, behaved wonderfully. Sure, it was dehydrated, and sometimes a little sensitive, with the occassional blemish, but that's about as clear and radiant as you can ask for. And what do all of these products have in common? They're natural, chock-full of botanicals (except, obviously Cetaphil, and I've no idea how the Biotherm works, but it does, so I'm not complaining).

I had accumulated some minor clogging of pores (blackheads), because I had started to wear makeup everyday. Nothing too major as far as my skin was concerned, a little undereye concealer and blush, but with running around a mucky campus and glasses and who knows what else, some blackheads were inevitable. So, I figured, why not look for a really great AHA/BHA product? I don't have the patience to use a scrub, and exfoliation is really key to any skincare routine, plus, salicylic acid is great for unclogging pores! And there is no better or greater AHA/BHA serum than La Prairie's, pH balanced in a soothing aloe gel. Sounds great. I got right on ordering some samples.

It was, I have to admit, a mistake. It was too harsh for my sensitive skin, and I can't say for certain, it seemed to make my problems worse. Soon enough, I had a real blackhead problem. It might have been something else, of course, but I'm not willing to test it beyond a doubt. I'm pretty sure it did, though, because I began applying every other day (it was too strong for daily use) to some clogged pores between my brows, and not only did they become more clogged (whereas they had beem completely minimal before), they inflamed into actual blemishes. Hmm... not so cool. But I'm glad to have gotten out of a $150 habit, at least.

In any case, this all taught me something. My skin, though it has allergies to certain botanical ingredients (such as calendula), far prefers natural products. That's why, for example, it liked Caudalíe, or the Quince Day Cream, or Body Time, or LUSH, or everything Better Botanicals. And the less synthetic the better, as evidenced by how much my skin loves that Dandelion Moisturizer from Better Botanicals. It reacts horribly, however, to something extremely chemical, such as the La Prairie. I've no idea why this is, but it certainly explains why my skin is so responsive to some products, and is not responsive to most generic formulations.

And what better than Dr. Hauschka to step up? It is botanical to the point of being positively vegan (for real). Even the herbs they use, they grow themselves and process (some, anyway) by hand. "Why not?", I decided, and ordered some samples from Beautyhabit.com.

I've realized that with Dr. Hauschka, the products work in concert. Usually, the idea that you need to use products from the line to get best results is, pardon my French, a load of crap. But for Dr. Hauschka, it really seems to be true. The cleansers are gentle, but oily, and it is well to really massage them in (and rinse off well). The toners have alcohol, but they mitigate the film left behind from cleansing (but you don't rub it off, as you do with other toners). And you are not supposed to use a night cream. That's right. They don't want you to spend more money on them. Try one of their lovely day creams, which are more protective than treatment, but for the day only. And already (though it's only been a few days), my skin looks so much healthier. And the pores have diminished (I wasn't aware there were products that did that), and the oiliness of the products actually make them easier to remove.

It takes a week or so for your skin to get acclimatized to the more emollient products (and you may break out a little in the process), but once it does, it's smooth sailing (since my skin is dry, it took much less time). I think the thing about Dr. Hauschka that appeals to me is that it is not about treatment, as many chemical-laden products are, but about maintenance. It really promotes your skin's own abilities to heal and take care of itself (hence why they're so adamant about not using night creams... they say that they interfere with the skin's metabolic processes, which may be a load of crock, I've no idea). Dr. Hauschka, though it was only established 30 years ago, is a bit old-fashioned in its approach, and for someone with truly problematic skin, it won't do much. But it's my belief that for most women, your skin is often irritated because modern formulations are so chock full of abrasive chemicals (the skin is an incredibly absorptive organ, think of progesterone creams, par exemple) and the modern diet so full of hormones, and while it may react unfavorably to Dr. Hauschka for a week or two, it'll eventually purge itself of toxins and be happy with Dr. Hauschka.

As for me, the changeover was pretty easy. I have drier skin that doesn't usually break out, and I was using simpler, more natural products to begin with (but I attribute the fact that my skin is clear and dry because I use such products; there's no reason for my skin to be overactive), hence why it probably threw a tantrum in response to the La Prairie. Give it a try! Samples are easy to procure.

Cleansing Milk/Reinigings melk/Lait de Toilette
This is a lovely, silky lotion cleanser. It's leagues more luxurious than my usual Cetaphil, with a pleasant scent (kinda reminds me of flowers wilting in a vase). It does leave an oily film behind (it's rather rich), but it really softens up dead flakes of skin when you massage it in, and the film disappears with the toner. Why have I chosen this over the Cleansing Cream? for three reasons: cost (you need more, and you get less, with the Cleansing Cream), my skin is on the delicate side (the Cleansing Cream is mildly exfoliating), and I prefer not to be embroiled in any kind of hassle when it comes to cleansing (there's a roll-and-press technique that requires mastering). But I haven't tried it, so who knows?

ingredients
Water, Alcohol, Anthyllis vulneraria Extract, Jojoba Oil, Sweet Almond Oil, Apricot Kernel Oil, Glycerin, Fermented Grain Extract, Cetearyl Alcohol, Bentonite, Lecithin, Xanthan Gum, Fragrance, Limonene, Geraniol, Linalool, Citronellol

Facial Toner/Gezichts lotion/Lotion Tonifiante
This is, as one might imagine, gentler than the Clarifying Toner. It's got less alcohol, and I don't have an allergic reaction to this one. It comes with a spray attachment, so after cleansing, mist it on and pat it in. With your skin still dewy from the toner, apply your preferred moisturizer. While I usually consider toner entirely an accessory product, I think it is essential here. Without them, the cleansers don't work, they're too oily. And the creams are rather thick and concentrated, so a bit of moisture on the skin aids in application. The alcohol/witch hazel combination isn't rough at all (I hear they use some special plant alcohol, but I remain dubious as to whether that makes a difference), and my oft dry/sensitive skin doesn't mind it. It smells a lot like some sort of floral extract fermenting (perhaps that's where the alcohol comes from)... which ought to turn me off, but I don't really mind it.

ingredients
Water, Anthyllis vulneraria Extract, Alcohol, Witch Hazel Extract, Fragrance

Rose Day Cream/Rozen crème/Crème à la Rose
I just assumed that the Quince Day Cream was the right one for me (my skin has taken a turn towards dry this recent year; it's hard to readjust). I had tried the Quince before and I thought the formula really wonderful, though I wasn't wowed enough to leave my Better Botanicals Dandelion Moisturizer behind. But Beautyhabit was good enough to include a sample of the Rose Day Cream, and I couldn't be further along in cosmetic bliss (no wonder it's got a cult following!). I had gotten a sample before, but thought it gross. Apparently, this has been reformulated, and I dare say for the better. This is a lot richer than the Quince, and has more of a "barrier" effect, and while the Quince absorbed quickly, this sits on the skin for a bit. I've learned not to mind that, because my skin likes to be nurtured. I apply very sparingly, which I really like—I don't like to slather, I prefer to be economical. This is very gentle, nourishing face cream, and I really look forward to using this in the winter, or all year round, for that matter. My skin simply drinks it up. With a lovely, though strong, rose fragrance (as you might imagine).

ingredients
Water, Peanut Oil, Marshmallow Extract, Beeswax, Avocado Extract, St. John's Wort Extract, Shea Butter, Lecithin, Fragrance, Citronellol, Geraniol, Linalool, Limonene, Citral, Farnesol, Benzyl Alcohol, Eugenol, Rose Wax, Rose Petal Extract, Rose Hip Extract

For more information, Dr. Hauschka has a website at www.drhauschka.com. It may be purchased at www.sephora.com, www.beautyhabit.com, as well as at Whole Foods, many health food stores. Or, though the shipping is a little horrendous (it's international), www.alegria-naturkosmetik.com is a great resource, because they sell at German prices, which is a LOT cheaper (yes, that is €14.90 for the Rose Day Cream, rather than $35).

0 Comment(s) Email this post

NARS Cleo
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:55 PM (Eastern)

I love Cleo. Like all Nars eyeshadows, it's wonderfully subtle and complex.

On the left is a pastel blue, sort of a seafoam color, with a silvery sheen to it. The shimmer is soft, with a teeny bit of sparkle to it. It goes on quite sheer, so it is not so blue as it might seem. In addition, the shimmer is just a wee bit warm, so it looks soft, not harsh. If I find it too sheer to be applied with a brush, I apply with my finger. Then it's just the faintest hint of a silvery blue gleam, sparkling just a tiny bit. It's easy enough to wear, with a chocolate-y brown liner, or black, or the color beside it.

The right is my favorite. Possibly my favorite liner shadow thus far—though the grapey suede shade of Nars Babylon is more universally flattering, this shade is a lot more interesting. It has a charcoal base, flecked with teal sparkles. A very unique shade, quite unlike any other. The only problem is, it is not pigmented—long-lasting enough to use as a true liner. I apply liner pretty thickly, but even so, I found the teal wearing off, so eventually, it just looks like silver and black, which isn't anywhere near as interesting. Cleo worked fine as a smoky eye, with the teal-flecked charcoal smudged thickly on the lid, but it's hardly suitable for everyday. The look didn't exactly *wow* me, perhaps because charcoal/black is too harsh next to my skin. So, Cleo lay stagnant for a while.

Enter, MAC Powersurge Eye Kohl. I'd been using Powersurge with the Babylon duo, and one day it occurred to me to try it with Cleo. Now, Powersurge is a bronze, with a gorgeous gold veneer, it's not the color that one would automatically leap to. But it was brilliant and lovely, and perfect. It catapulted the duo into "genius".

The liner did two things. First, because pencil is creamy and shadow is powdery, the powder shadow, flecks and all, grab right onto the bronze. This also helps the liner last longer. Second, Powersurge is warm, and not really a dark shade, so it softens the charcoal, but highlights the teal (gold and teal, sort of complementary colors, sort of). No longer is Cleo harsh, but perfectly wearable.

The result is maybe not so much cool mod chic (though you can channel that vibe if you like), but Atlantean mermaid. It's not as much color as you would think, as the seafoam shade is sheer and light, and the teal-flecked charcoal only has color intermittently (as opposed to a full-on teal metallic shimmer, for example) in a dark, neutral base.

Usually I use the grey shade of Nars Dream Lover Duo instead, which is a softer look, in terms of color. Not so mermaid-y, perhaps, but still very Atlantean.

I am not entirely certain, but I believe it is part of the Summer 2003 Feel the Heat Collection.

Since my own pictures didn't turn out very well (it's hard to gauge light and focus and suchlike on oneself, and anyway, I'm not really photogenic), I've adopted my sister, Elaine, as a model. She's got eyes similar to mine, though hers are larger and she has slightly darker skin than I do. The principle remains the same, with Powersurge to line:

It's much more impressive in the flesh, I think, though not as sparkly (the flash makes it more vivid, frost-wise). You may be able to detect a halo of the turquoise shimmer on her lids, which, as I have mentioned before, is quite sheer. There's the Powersurge, of course, and most beautiful of all, the teal. As far as I know, no other shade like this on the market.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

NARS Rated R
Posted by Dain, Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:55 PM (Eastern)

This is, in some ways, my favorite Nars duo. I prefer my Nars duos pigmented and shocking. All About Eve has its place, but why would you pay $28 for something that looks like normal skin? Nah, this brilliant, bold duo delivers much more of a punch.

I say it's my favorite, "in some ways", because I feel guilty for not saying that Babylon is. But Babylon and Rated R are polar opposites. Babylon has a very distinct character, more like "sunset in Arizona". Overly poetic, perhaps, but Babylon is definitely autumnal, definitely sophisticated, though not in a frowsy, old-fashioned way—Babylon is very modern. Rated R, I would hesistate to describe in such a manner. It defies description. It's very fresh, very chic, but it's not as bold as you might think (on). In the pan, it's grotesquely vivid, but it's a lot more wearable than appearances would have you believe. The only problem with Babylon, is that it looks a bit strange during warmer weather, and makes me look more tired when I'm fatigued, I'm not sure why. Conversely, Rated R would look bizarre in the fall. So, I will say I have two favorites, for for cooler weather, and one for warmer. And then there's Cleo for neutrality.

One side is an acidic lime green, with plenty of sparkle scattered in. It's not a shimmer in the sense that, say, Stila Kitten would be a shimmer. That is to say, there are flecks of shimmer in what is essentially a matte base, rather than all the particles being shimmery. Sheer, you just have the subtlest hint of lime-gold sparkles, full strength, it's as it appears in the pan, acidic, bold, and lime, with brilliant lime-gold sparkles. The other side is a cool, vibrant blue, not as sparkly as the lime, but it has its fair share of lighter blue sparkles. Sheer, it's just a shadowy hint of cool blue, with a tone of grey to smooth it out. Full strength, it's a rough, brilliant, blue, one that would be called periwinkle if it were more purple, and pastel. Both are clearly acid tones.

It's very nicely pigmented. The colors, if applied full strength, are exactly as you see them in the pan. You can apply them sheerer, of course, with no problem, and the effect is a lot softer. Very modern: bold color, but only a watery hint of it.

I imagine it can be worn any number of ways. The one I've had the best success with is with the lime as a liner and the blue on the lid. Yes, I know, it seems counterintuitive. Why not use the lime as a wash (green is more a flattering color than blue) and the blue as a liner? I don't know, but for some reason, the other is prettier. I line thickly with Kyoto pencil (by Nars), a dusky olive slivered with gold, and dust on the lime over it. The Kyoto serves two purposes, it lets the lime "grab on", and it softens it somewhat. More a leaf green, this way, with a vestige of acidity with the lime-gold sparkles. Then, I add a sheer wash of the blue, and I, who always thought she could not wear blue, find this very flattering.

If Babylon is a Georgia O'Keeffe, Rated R, applied in this way, is a Van Gogh. 1889 "Irises", in particular. Babylon is like velvet, luxurious and mellow, Rated R is like satin, crisp and fresh. There's something aggressive about Rated R... chic, yes, but irreverent. Rated R doesn't take itself seriously. And neither should you.

Of course, Rated R is not for everyone. It is, after all, quite bold.

Me wearing Rated R, with Nars Kyoto:

The green in the pictures is a lot stronger than it really is, because these are close-ups.

To give you a better idea, I've photographed the same look with my sister as a substitute:

The colors are brighter on her than on me, for some reason (the lime is a lot limier). And the flash brings out the shades more.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

NARS Babylon
Posted by Dain, Monday, May 09, 2005 7:36 PM (Eastern)

I would like to do homage to my first NARS duo, Babylon. Seems so long ago, but really, I couldn't have gotten it earlier than summer 2003.

It's pretty enough in the pan, but not particularly striking. A description would not do it justice. For one thing, the colors aren't complex—not as Stila's are. And the combinations are startling. But they morph drastically on the skin, into something beautifully, amazingly flattering.

Anyway, here goes:
One side is a sparkly creamsicle color... you know, tangerine with a bit of a champagne pearl, with a few flakes of sparkle interspersed into it. There's a soft, silvery beige-y sheen to it (hence why I noted "champagne"). The other is a dusky suede of a grayed grape... it rather reminds me of the now defunct Jane Purple Heart but not as bright, and completely matte. A failsafe liner color, and if you ask me, easier than brown (which looks blah, or ruddy, or muddy, unless it's a very special brown indeed).

You have to understand, this is not a set of shades that should flatter me. Matte purple-gray? Eugh... looks like I have dirt on my skin. And ORANGE? I wear soft colors, usually on the warm side: champagnes, golds, pinks, warm lavenders and violets, greens. Imagine my surprise, when I was fooling around in Sephora (which is how I discover most of the "genius!" discoveries from Nars, it seems), and I found that this works. The tangerine goes on soft and warm and not too orange. The violet you can use as liner or a wedge (looks polished without any whorish overtones) with a small, firm shadow brush. Of course, you can smoke it all around and layer the tangerine to soften the edges, in which case it's sultry and sort of early-90s-supermodel heroin chic, a look I would *never* have thought I could pull off (nor imagined I'd want to). The combination is a lot like looking at the very last bits of twilight in the Arizona desert—it's the closest I'll ever get to owning a Georgia O'Keeffe. It is not an eye look to wear with blush, maybe with bronzer, though I wear it with blush anyway, simply because I need something rosy in my face otherwise I look washed out. So I pair this with MAC O lipstick, sometimes with Delux Asher lipgloss over it, and the effect is cool, sleek, and mauve-y.

A word of caution, you do have to use proper eyeshadow brushes to appreciate it, so try and pilfer some to use... And I'm not sure how this would work on someone with cool-toned skin. Probably not so well. Ahh... well, I can't wear Rebecca, after all.

I'm not a fan of buying "color stories", but this really is perfectly Fall 2003. Very much the old glamour that designers like YSL Rive Gauche and Carolina Herrera have been channeling, except with a modern twist, as the colors are quite modern. But of course, you can wear it any time. It's just beautifully autumnal.

The duo, on me, combined with MAC Powersurge Eye Kohl:

And on my sister, a bit more subtly done:

You can see the subtle silvery sheen of the tangerine shimmer, and the purple against her lashes. The bronze shimmer is Powersurge, of course.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Stephane Marais Cream Foundation
Posted by Dain, Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:50 PM (Eastern)

Stephane Marais has something of an allure for me that a lot of the other niche "artist" lines do not. Not Linda Cantello, not Kevyn Aucoin, not Giorgio Armani (which I tend to think of as the Pat McGrath line). I don't know. I think part of it is that he also developed the Clé de Peau makeup line, and mimics many of the same products in his own line for much cheaper (not that Stephane Marais is cheap, rather that Clé de Peau is so expensive). In any case, I had to try the cream foundation. I really like cream foundations because they can often double as concealer, but still have the innovations of natural-looking, skin-mimicing texture that many foundations have nowadays, that concealers still lack. For the same reasons, many make-up artists use cream foundation as a staple.

I bought mine in Paris (the "mother ship", the Champs-Elysées Sephora), but it's also available at Barney's, Henri Bendel, www.meccacosmetica.com, www.blissworld.com, www.brownesbeauty.com, and Louis Boston.

As for the foundation itself, it's incomparable (except to its sister, Clé de Peau cream foundation). Kevyn Aucoin's too much coverage for me, Chantecaille lacks a color for me (but perhaps I haven't given it enough trial-by-application) and I don't much like the consistency, Sue Devitt doesn't have a color light enough for me, I don't like the formula of Bobbi Browns (lots of filler, a gel-like base with unrefined pigments, the Stephane Marais is much more dense), and of course, Clé de Peau is too expensive ($100). Stephane Marais' is cheaper than all of them (at $39), and is top-notch quality. Finely milled pigments and a natural-looking finish.

It's easy to use, once you get the hang of it. A little goes a long way, and the best method is finger painting. Because it does have a lot of coverage, it's better to dab on, rather than to rub it in (no lateral motions, if you can help it, just vertical). The coverage is quite adjustable, that way, and the heat of your fingers melts the product into your skin much more convincingly.

The colors are excellent, though the lightest in the olive range, O0, has gotten too light for the summer. I dislike the packaging, though. It's nice enough, a wide-mouthed glass jar, but it's not at all hygienic or travel-friendly.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #3
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Friday, May 06, 2005 9:39 PM (Eastern)

Okay, we have covered department store eyeshadows for "green eyes, with overall neutral to warm coloring," along with a few products that work for all sorts of green eyes, in posts #1 and #2.

Now I would like to throw in some drugstore shadows, before tackling liners.

The first stop I would make in a drugstore, is Milani. Milani is targeted toward women of color. The shadows cost $3 per pan and some of the colors are really very good.

The prettiest Milani shadow for our coloring, to me, is "Golden Bronze."

It is not exactly green eye popping on its own...it is a coolish gold (not bronze at all). But it's an excellent foil for, say, your MAC Trax, your deep purple liners or shadows. Gold and purple work well together.

A nice crease shade is "Java Bean."

This is brown shimmer with a distinct plummy tone, a touch of red too.

For a very yellow gold, try "Sun Goddess."

For a look-alike to MAC Sable, check out "Spice."

Spice is really very similar, down to the coolish red shimmer. The MAC blends better, but check the Milani shade first to see how the color suits you.

These are my top picks from Milani, of the shadows I've tried. "Marooned" is a good color...deep reddish plum...but I replaced my Marooned with MAC Bordeauxline Powerpoint eyepencil, since this color is too dark to use as anything other than a liner, and the pencil form is faster to apply.

"Flare" is an interesting color...almost pure red, a little orange...if you're up to working with unusual colors, you might check this out.

"Moonlight" doesn't pop green eyes particularly but it's worth a mention as it is unusual: white with blue iridescence. Don't forget to wear a base under it; it fades quickly otherwise.

Some picks from other brands...

Annabelle is a Canadian drugstore brand. Do check out #1400:

This is a nice solid pink-gold-brown base shade. It lasts all day; no creasing.

Sonia Kashuk makes good shadows but they tend toward the cool. Here is a nice deep bronze they make, "Neutral Territory":

For $8, it's a good quality deep bronze that doesn't turn dark as the day goes on. The white shade in the duo is next to useless, so if deep bronze is your thing, you're probably better off buying MAC. For me though, the price is better since I don't wear deep bronze every day.

Worth a mention is their "Starlight" shadow. Not particularly green-eye-popping, but a superior ivory shimmer, as good as high end.

Liners will be covered next.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Body time...
Posted by Dain, Thursday, May 05, 2005 3:13 AM (Eastern)

Now, I'm not big on bath and body products. I'm meticulous about cleanliness, so a daily or twice daily shower becomes more a burden than anything else. But we all must get clean, and there's no use in being lax in our considerations when it comes to products.

BODY WASHES
Actually, I prefer soap. I don't like to bother with a pouf. But dorm showers being what they are, body gels and body washes are by far the more economic proposition. Since I have dry skin in the winter and normal skin in the summer, they must NOT be stripping. Otherwise, as long as they smell good (but not strongly), that's about all I ask for. I like Dove Intense Moisture (nice floral scent) and Johnson's ExtraCare Softwash (powdery but floral). Neither have very interesting scents, but they're nice and quite mild (important when you don't want your products to clash with your perfume). I haven't really ventured into the high-end market as far as body cleansers go, and the only product I'd ever repurchase is LUSH's Alkmaar soap, which has a marvelous scent.

EXFOLIATION
Body scrubs are an awkward phenomenon, to me. I don't much like scrubs for my face, so when it's for the body, it seems even more useless. But viscose cloths, which can be found in virtually any oriental market, are positively brilliant. They're far more effective—you can literally see the yucky dirty dead skin cells roll off—and they're a lot easier to use.

MOISTURIZATION
Bar none, it's Palmer's Cocoa Butter lotion, and I prefer the fragrance-free (because I'm rather sensitive and picky when it comes to scents). It's rich and makes skin supersoft, but it sinks in with comparative ease (considering how rich it is... it sinks in better than my Olay Quench, for example, and cocoa butter is far more luxurious). I also use the aforementioned Olay Quench on my legs, not the regular lotion, but the "Radiance Reviver", which has a "kiss of self-tanner", but not for its moisturizing benefits per se, but for its subtle tanning effects. A nice lighter weight lotion I also like is Nivea Soft Creme, which has a soft powdery scent that isn't too invasive. But for very dry, flakey winter skin, there's no better solution than to slather on the Palmer's.

BATHS
Oh, I adore baths. Unfortunately, not a thing I get to indulge in often, given that dorms mostly have showers. But I love LUSH bath products: Butterball and Ceridwen's Cauldron. So lovely. High-quality products that always ensure peace of mind, somehow.

0 Comment(s) Email this post

MAC Powersurge!
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:23 PM (Eastern)

This I've written before, as a post and then as a review, but this is really quite an article, so hopefully you'll forgive me for redundancy.

Copied and edited from my post of August 10, 2004
O, everyone should own Powersurge. It is like... the potato. Before you murmur at my stupidity, I totally mean it pretentious-literary-like. In M.F.K. Fisher's first book, Serve It Forth (which is a great book, so read it!), my favorite chapter is dedicated to the potato. The whole premise of the chapter is that she attacks the American (and European, for that matter) aesthetic of meat-and-potatoes, where the potato is totally unappreciated, but simply "expected", as a given and a prerogative.

Instead, she suggests that it be eaten with true appreciation. Of course, for its own innate goodness:
"A potato is good when it is cooked correctly. Baked slowly, with its skin rubbed first in a buttery hand. or boiled in its jacket and then 'shook', it is delicious. Salt and pepper are almost always necessary to its hot moist-dusty flavour. Alone, or with a fat jug of rich cool milk or a chunk of French Gruyère, it fills the stomach and the soul with a satisfaction not too easy to attain." (To this day, I cannot eat a baked potato with proper enjoyment unless it is with a glass of milk, though I tried the Gruyère thing and found it repugnant. And "moist-dusty", jesus, that is what a potato tastes like, huh?)

But even more so for its utter perfection as a complement:
"If, French fried, they make a grilled sirloin taste richer; if, mashed and whipped with fresh cream and salty butter, they bridge the deadly gap between a ragoût and a salad; if, baked and pinched open and bulging with mealy snowiness, they offset the fat spiced flavour of sausages—then and then alone should they be served. Then they are dignified. Then they are worthy of a high place, not debased to the deadly rank of daily acceptance. Then they are a gastronomic pleasure, not merely 'tubers used for food'".

Anyway, what has this got to do with make-up? Well, Powersurge is exactly like that. It's pretty on its own, of course, a lovely bronze with a smooth finish of gold—very nice against the skin and peeking through lashes (and for subtle definition). But its especial genius is how it combines with other shades, especially [coughs] Nars duos. Nars tends to be cool, even with his warmish-seeming duos, and Powersurge softens them somewhat by adding a little warmth. Plus, it allows the liner to really "grab onto" the skin, for improved longevity (which any creamy pencil will do but Powersurge does especially well because it melds so well into the skin). But most all, it somehow harmonizes (and as much as I try, I can't say why) shades beautifully—especially if they are colors for the sake of colors and rather discordant with the skin's natural tones. I find this true with both Babylon and Cleo, which sit a little rough and chalky on the skin without the aid of Powersurge. It is somehow a supreme complement, and that's the magic of it.

I must truly be insane by this point. I rationalize everything in terms of Nars duos now! So, who knows? Perhaps it is not so great in real-world terms. But it does look smashing against oceanic colors as a general rule... periwinkle, sea blue, mermaid green, lavender, sand. All the colors one would find at the sea, basically (including at sunset).

A picture of Powersurge and what it looks like:

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Five Minute Makeup
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Monday, May 02, 2005 5:18 PM (Eastern)

This is a page I came up with in 2001: Five Minute Face.

At the time, there wasn't a great deal of emphasis on speed in makeup application. There was still the notion that putting on a face meant moisturizer, concealer, foundation, powder, three shades of eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara, brow makeup, lipstick (conceivably with liner and gloss), and blush.

Well, that is fine for a beauty magazine, but what about real life? Shouldn't there be alternatives?

Quick and easy application is a major factor in which products I choose to buy. It factors into which brushes I feel are necessary to own. If my makeup can't last the day without touching up (the sole exception is lipstick), it hits the trash. Time is money and I am cheap.

There are many ways to shave those precious morning minutes. You just need to figure out what is the bare minimum makeup for you, and then take it from there.

Foundation Products

Sunscreen is key. You need that. Pay more if you have to, but find a full spectrum sunscreen that you feel comfortable in.

For me that is still TerraSport sunscreen. There are many others on the market, from Neutrogena in drugstores, to Clinique and Shiseido in department stores. Health food stores carry Jason, TerraSport, Zia, and other brands.

Foundation. Do you need it? You may not. If your skin is good, skip it.

You can choose to wear concealer instead, or tinted moisturizer, or powder foundation, or powder, or a combination of these. Take a few moments to figure out what your skin actually needs.

I use a tinted sunscreen, myself. Purists will scream, but putting three or four layers of anything on my face does not fit in with my real life.

Over that I put some powder...MAC Blot pressed for me (oily skin)...I'm done.

Lipstick in Purse tactic

Running out the door? Find a no-brainer lipstick and keep it in your purse, in one of those mirrored lipstick holders. Something that looks good with everything. For me that would be MAC Viva Glam V or Sophisto...both sheer, wearable shades for me.

One or the other is always in my purse; I don't usually apply it at home.

Eyeliner Pencils, Mascara

One of the fastest things to apply is eyeliner pencil or mascara.

My lashes are naturally dark; I don't wear mascara at all. If your lashes are fair, you may choose the mascara and skip the pencil.

The eyepencil needs to last all day. It also needs to go on silky smooth. Anything that's hard, or fades quickly, is outta there.

For green eyes, the essentials would be:

Deep purple. I have MAC Powerpoint pencils in Permaplum (blue-based) and Bordeauxline (neutral, with a touch of red). Permaplum is a bit fancier, and looks better on its own, than Bordeauxline but I do wear both.

Deep brown. Here you can go with a drugstore pencil such as Prestige Automatic Waterproof, Max Factor Pensilks, the automatic Cover Girl one...or go high end. MAC makes good ones and I've heard Lancome does too.

Eyeshadow

It's good to have a couple "reach for" shadows in your stash.

For me, that would be MAC Vapour (white with a bit of pink), Urban Decay Kiss (rose-mauve), something along with lines of a yellow gold (I have one in a black|Up quad)...something that looks good on its own, with a liner slapped on.

For a crease...when there's time for one...have a few no-brainer crease shades. For me that would be a deepish bronze (Sonia Kashuk Neutral Territory duo) and warm plum (MAC Trax, which is plum-gold with a rose layer).

Blush

Here you need a good brush but it doesn't have to break the bank. I'm happy with my Sonia Kashuk blush brush which is what, five bucks?

Good blush should be next to effortless to apply.

For me it is currently MAC Blushbaby and Cargo Catalina blushes. Catalina was, I understand, highly publicized at one point...it is a clear warmish, medium pink matte. Blushbaby is one of those natural rose-muted-with-brown things...like the discontinued Lancome Rose Charmant Blush Subtil, Neutrogena Sweet Raisin powder blush...there's always one around.

Brushes

Aside from the aforementioned Sonia Kashuk blush brush, I use the Sonia Kashuk large eyeshadow brush and MAC #224 brush the most.

The large eyeshadow brush can be any brush that doesn't shed, and has a flat head about the size of your thumbnail. You use it to quickly apply powder shadow to your lids, or lids and crease, or lashline-to-brow, as needed.

MAC #224 is my crease brush...it's pricy at $28 but so far I haven't really used anything else for creases. #224 is soft and tapered...it squooshes the color into your crease and wipes a bit of it slightly above the crease. Pretty neat.

If you want a sharper, more precise crease you'd probably go with something else...something firmer, perhaps more tapered.

So, what did I wear today?

I was in a hurry today. Here's what I put on in less than five minutes:

* My usual base face: the tinted sunscreen and MAC Blot pressed powder.
* Annabelle #1400 eyeshadow as a wash...this is a Canadian drugstore brand. #1400 is a brown-based, pink-gold shimmer shadow. Applied with the Sonia Kashuk large eyeshadow brush.
* Sonia Kashuk "Neutral Territory" eyeshadow duo--the bronze shade--in outer crease, applied with the #224 MAC brush.
* Prestige Expresso Automatic Waterproof liner...applied in a few short strokes rather than a continuous line, and smudged with a clean fingertip.
* MAC Blushbaby blush (applied with the Sonia Kashuk blush brush).
* MAC Viva Glam V lipstick.

I hope you will discover your own quick and easy five minute faces. :)

0 Comment(s) Email this post

Rants, raves, and musings on all things cosmetic.
Profile | Current Blog
Site Feed (Atom)

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
·· Makeover! My good friend, Amy...
·· What I bought today (5.23.05)...
·· New waters, new... shampoo?
·· More on sheers...
·· Diagnosis of a Trend: Sheer Makeup
·· Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #4
·· Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe: Part Two, Browns and Nudes
·· FOTD
·· Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe: Part One, The Foundation
·· What I bought today (5.14.05)...
·· Dior 5-Color Eyeshadow
·· Things I'm loving now (5.13.05)...
·· Dr. Hauschka, holistic skincare
·· NARS Cleo
·· NARS Rated R
·· NARS Babylon
·· Stephane Marais Cream Foundation
·· Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #3
·· Body time...
·· MAC Powersurge!
·· Five Minute Makeup

Archives
TheBroadroom.Net's Beauty Blog (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

Links
Colleen's Adult Acne Blog
Fashiontribes Daily