Skip to main content

making faces :: g-force sneak peek

the eagles have landed. beautiful, majestic eagles of the makeup world, under the name of rouge g lipsticks by guerlain.

if you've read this blog before, you probably know that rouge g is one of my favourite lipstick formulas [neck-and-neck with rouge d'armani]. if you haven't read this blog before, now you know.

along with every other guerlain fan, i was excited to hear that the brand was adding a half a dozen new shades to the line at once this summer. all are available at some locations now, with others to follow shortly.

while guerlain has been adding new shades to the rouge g assortment from time to time, they haven't done a refresh like this since the formula was initially launched. i've noticed that the size of the display doesn't actually seem to be changing and that there are a few shades that have been out of stock for some time, so it's possible that a number of shades that are being discontinued, but i don't have confirmation on that.

the official descriptions of the newly launched shades are:

galiane [15] :: nude beige
gaetane [16] :: deep brown
geraldine [77] :: luminous pink
gladys [78] :: vibrant fuchsia
geneva [48] :: blood orange
rose grenat [864] :: velvety red-pink
rose glace [866] :: nude, barely there pink

the last two shades, like all 800-series rouge g shades, are limited edition.

now here they are swatched on my hand [kind of surreptitiously in store]:


on the extreme left, next to my cuff, you may see a slightly shiny patch of skin. that's rose glace. and it's built up to get that. on the first swipe, i thought i had accidentally applied a plastic "dummy" from the display, because i could see anything. it's truly a lip balm and nothing more. there is a little shimmer, but i had to squint to see it even after three passes.

next is "geraldine". isn't she pretty? this is a great medium pink that's a little brighter than a lot of guerlain's offerings, but still works for everyday wear. it's cooler and brighter than "georgia" [62], which is the closest shade i could come up with from the existing guerlain line.

"geneva" is a happy reddened orange. it's a little less opaque than most rouge g lipsticks and seemed a little tricky to get even. that said, i've had this happen with armani lipsticks before and they apply perfectly, so it's possible that won't be a problem in use. i loved the colour, although there are a lot of these shades around at the moment. "genna" [28] is much redder and deeper. "nahema" from the rouge automatique line is extremely close, but a little bit less pink and more orange. you wouldn't need both, unless you adore corals.

"gaetane" is a chestnut colour, brown yes, but not especially deep. it also seemed to have a bit of translucency, like "geneva". there wasn't any colour i could find among the rouge g's that came close to it. there are some browns among the rouge automatiques, but they all seemed softer. i didn't have access to other brands to compare, but i think this bears a resemblance to chanel "baroque", just a little lighter and without the shimmer.

"gladys" is a knockout. it's a cool, bold fuchsia with amazing pigmentation that went on extremely smoothly. what you're looking at in the photo is a single pass. it is very similar to "gigi" [68], which is just a hair deeper and plummier.

"rose grenat" is my favourite shade from the launch and probably the first i'm going to pick up, since it's limited. the description of a velvety red-pink gives a perfect sense not only of the colour, but of the texture. it is pretty close to "madame batifole", which is cooler and has more shimmer and "provocative", which is a bit redder. my tube of "provocative" went missing, which is one reason why i'm lusting after this one so much. i can't see how you'd need both. [however, since both "madame batifole" and "provocative" were limited, this would be kind of like buying an insurance policy.]

finally, we have "galiane", a very wearable nude-beige. it's too warm to work as a nude for me, but i suspect it will please a lot of people. to my eye, it's indistinguishable from "gillian' [14] and there are a lot of nude shades that are similar.

the three pink-fuchsia shades are the clear winners for me. i don't hesitate to recommend any of them. skip rose glace, for certain. the others are question marks. i would like to see how "geneva" and "gaetane" perform on the lips before committing. "galiane" is an exact dupe of an existing shade, but if you want a nude lipstick, it's an excellent choice.

see any that you like? i know i do...

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 …