Skip to main content

making faces :: autumn additions [nars, guerlain]

i've already waxed "poetic" on my love for fall makeup and makeup trends, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that i indulged in a couple of autumnal treats courtesy of nars and guerlain. and it probably shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that i'm very happy with both, given that these are two of my favourite brands. both are extremely reliable [which is not to say infallible, but true misses are rare] and, while they both fall into the "special occasion" price range [particularly guerlain], the occasions when you wear them will, indeed, be pretty special.

my new gigolo
first up, we have one of three new rouge g lipsticks from guerlain that have launched for fall. a lot of the attention for this collection is going to go [with reason] to the new eye shadow quads which are replacing the ones that guerlain had had as part of their permanent range. those are beautiful, but i really have a weakness for deep, jewel-toned lips and the new shade "gigolo" is right up my alley. it's not dark enough that i'd call it a really "vampy" lip colour, but, like most of the rouge g's, it's incredibly saturated, rich and opaque. it's a reddened type of berry shade, almost literally the colour of raspberries on the vine.

SEE WHAT'S NEW[ISH] FROM NARS AND A LOOK FEATURING PRODUCTS IN ACTION...



although the formula on these lipsticks is normally phenomenal [surprisingly lightweight for such intense colour payoff and moist without feeling greasy], this one actually seems to be an improvement. i'm incredibly fussy about fading colour and i wore this for eight hours, including a snack and a few pints of cider without having to retouch. although my lips lost a bit of their sheen, the colour remained a really intense stain [and yes, your lips will look like you just had a popsicle when you finally remove the colour at home]. even by guerlain's lofty standards, they knocked this one out of the proverbial park.

the problem, of course, is cost. i'll admit that i took advantage of a gift certificate for mine, because parting with $50cad for a lipstick is hard to justify. but if you can justify it, this is definitely the way to go. [if it makes you feel any better, guerlain are actually one of the few companies that minimises the gap between canadian and american pricing, so those south of the border are going to pay through the teeth too.]

grand palais, gigolo
second, we have nars' "grand palais" eye shadow duo, an unlikely combination of a cool taupe [with a slight carnation-pink sheen you really only pick up in person] and an antique rose colour, a sort of browned medium pink that i normally would take for a blush. pink shades around the eyes can be a bit tricky ["is that a rash?"], but somehow, these come together just perfectly. i did not look like i had some sort of infection and, in fact, the duo looks quite elegant in use. both shades are very soft and easy to work with. the taupe side can be applied a little more sheerly for a lighter shade, although i actually prefer to get the full effect.

nars duos are $38cad each and give you a lot of product for the money. they're ideal for a quick look, since they're made to go together, although i find that this one works especially well with a highlight colour added. although it's part of the fall collection, my understanding is that this duo will become part of the regular nars offering.

here's a surprisingly quick look i did using both of these new products. i think it's the kind of thing that would actually work on a variety of skin tones, from light [me] to dark, because the palette is pretty conservative.

eyes ::

nars e/s duo "grand palais"
mac e/s "dazzlelight"
mac e/s "satin taupe"
mac superslick liquid liner "on the hunt"
diorshow mascara

cheeks ::
nars blush "new order"
mac blush "amazon princess"

lips ::
guerlain rouge g "gigolo"

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …