Skip to main content

making faces :: a second swing around the kaleidoscope

i didn't expect that it would be this long before i did a second review of products from armani's stunning fall kaleidoscope collection, but i allowed myself to become distracted with the splendour of, among other things, their new rouge ecstasy lipsticks and i can't very well put my entire makeup purchasing budget towards armani. [can i?]

the good news is that the products from this collection are hanging around. the limited edition cheek and eye palettes continue to be available on line and at some counters, as do the lipsticks and the eyes to kill shadows. in fact, on the armani web site, which i take to be the 'bible' of what is permanent and what is limited, both the eyes to kill shadows and the rouge d'armani lipsticks seem to have been shuffled over to the permanent collections, which is tremendous news for beauty fans everywhere. armani is definitely one of the pricier brands out there- on par with yves st. laurent, chanel and guerlain- so it's always nice to have the option of taking your time with purchases.

then again, it's also nice to indulge the part of you that screams "I WANT IT NOW!!!". [mine screams especially loud when i pass an armani counter.]



the two items that i picked up were the ones that i had as "runners up" from my first round with this collection: the rouge d'armani lipstick in "610", a deep plum purple shade, and "blue beetle", one of the other eyes to kill shadows [also known simply as #34].

i'll start with the lipstick, since it's the more straightforward of the two. it's a deep purple shade with a very little red to it. it's not entirely opaque and after a couple of hours of wear, it forms a strong grape-like stain on the lips that's dramatic without being over the top. a daytime vampy lip? a vampy lip with training wheels? the red tinge keeps the purple from looking too cool and eerie, which darker, bluer purples can.

610
610
the rouge d'armani formula is probably the most consistent one on the market, which means that every shade is even, long-wearing and comfortable. i did notice that this one was a little bit drier on the lips than other shades, but not by a lot. it was the same in every other respect.

the shade is quite similar to another rouge d'armani, #604, but at the same time, it isn't. #604 is where you would go once you were ready to take the training wheels off, because it's bluer and darker and decidedly more opaque. of course, it also seems to have been discontinued, so it's possible that #610 was designed as a slightly less gothic replacement. if you love such colours, you'd find different uses for both. if you're not inclined to wear deep purples a lot, you'd be fine choosing one or the other.

l to r :: 610, rouge d'armani 604 [d.c.]
"blue beetle" is... i don't even know where to begin. i don't buy a lot of blues and teals, because i can't wear them terribly well, but when i saw this, there was no question, i had to have it. i felt like it was worth buying if all i ever did was take it out and swatch it occasionally, to admire its reflections on my skin. when we saw the collection originally at the armani counter, this was dom's favourite item. he couldn't believe i waited on purchasing it.

the shade itself is dreamy, both in the sense that it is beautiful, but also in the sense that it hardly seems real. it's not a single colour, it's more like looking at light being filtered through layers of diaphanous fabric. the base colour is, i think, a dark grey-blue, but all you really end up getting from that in terms of what you see is that there's a smokiness underlying everything and giving it a bit of weight. the most intense impression is that of a reflective blue-teal, very much like the shell of a beetle. there's something almost kinetic about this colour, in that it's constantly shifting, morphing, hovering over the darker base. and at certain angles, you get a distinct sheen of purple over the teal. i tried and failed to capture this in photos, but you get a hint of it at the top and bottom of the swatch, if you look carefully.

blue beetle
i can't stress this enough: you will never get an adequate impression of this shade from pictures on line. you need to see it in person or, if the description appeals to you, commit to buying it sight unseen. the nice thing about very complex shades is that they tend to be flattering over a fairly broad range of skin tones- there is a greater chance that there is some element that can connect to a person's own colouring when there is a range of hue represented in the eyeshadow.

i've been a huge fan of armani's eyes to kill shadows for years and i stand by my assertion that the ones from this collection represent an improvement on a formula that i would have sworn couldn't be improved. the shades in the kaleidoscope collection are smoother and have more sheen with less sparkle, so they're a little less flashy than some of the earlier shades. there is always a small amount of fallout with these shadows, so i'd recommend doing your eye makeup first, wiping any traces off your cheeks and then applying foundation.

although i do have some teal shades, there is really nothing to compare to "blue beetle". i've swatched it here next to mac "pre-packaged", which is a bit deeper and greener, but in use, these look nothing alike.

l to r :: blue beetle, mac pre-packaged [l.e.]
i do think that i managed to capture some of the elusive qualities of this shadow in the look i did with both of the products reviewed here, however i also find that the effect looks rather frosty. that wasn't the case in person- it really looked very smooth over the entire lid and ironically, i think i got a couple of rough shots with my phone that give a more accurate impression of how the shadow looks, even though the quality of the pictures is clearly inferior.



as for the following look, i'm not sure that this shows the products at their best, however i suspect that this is because i was actually distracted by the fact that my blouse just did not want to stay smooth and flat under the sweater i was wearing. little irritants like this ruin my whole day.





here's a list of everything i used for the look above:

the base ::
marcelle cc cream "light/ medium"
urban decay naked skin foundation "1.0"
dior firming concealer "010"
nars eyeshadow primer
nars light reflecting setting powder

the eyes ::
rbr e/s "snowy egret" [dirty white-gold]
rbr e/s "golden rhea" [peachy gold]
armani e/s "blue beetle" [iridescent smoked teal with purple sheen]
rbr e/s "eclipse eagle" [shimmery purple-grey]
mac e/s "jungle moon" [matte eggplant]*
inglot e/s "351" [matte ivory highlight]
ysl faux cils eye liner "sea black" [blackened navy with blue shimmer]
hourglass film noir mascara

the cheeks ::
rbr blush "gracilis"

the lips ::
armani l/s "610" [deep grape purple]

*suggested alternates :: jungle moon = mac shadowy lady [darker, bluer] or nars eurydice [purple shade- lighter] + matte black to deepen

this collection continues to be available on line at armani [if you're in the united states], although at the time of my writing this, "blue beetle" is not in stock. nordstrom still had everything last time i checked. i actually picked up both items at local counters- "610" from holt renfrw and "blue beetle" from the brand new armani counter at the bay in downtown montreal. although rumoured to have been limited, there is nothing currently on armani's web site that would indicate that these shades will not continue to be available for the foreseeable future.

i'll just put this out there now: it's possible i still haven't finished with this collection, even though spring 2014 is popping up at counters all over.

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 …