Skip to main content

making faces :: yves st. laurent, glossed over

pucker up, my pretties!
in the last few weeks, i've posted a couple of looks featuring some of the new gloss volupte lip glosses, new this spring from yves st. laurent. today i'll give you a look at the final one that i sampled, as well as a roundup of my thoughts on the formula overall.

first up, the final of the three colours i tried was "terriblement fuchsia". as you might expect, it's a bright fuchsia pink base and, being one of the sparkling shades, it has a fair amount of gold shimmer in it. this was definitely the boldest of the colours i tried and, in fact, it is surprisingly pigmented for such a light formula. the colour hung on for a long time and left a bit of a stain. unfortunately, the deeper colour meant that any unevenness in fading was more obvious and the colour did look a bit patchy as it wore on. it was easy enough to reapply, but this was the only one of the three shades that i tried where i felt i had to check it from time to time. it was also a little bit more difficult to apply evenly than the other colours, probably because any unevenness was more visible.

the colour itself is very pretty for spring and summer- a sort of rock candy type colour with bold pigmentation but also a glassy translucency. the shimmer reflects light in an understated but eye-catching way. it shouldn't be off-putting unless you really hate any kind of sparkle in your lip products, but if you do, there are a fair number of shimmer-free colours.

here's terriblement fuchsia in action:



i'm also wearing eye shadows from rouge bunny rouge [golden rhea, whispering ibis and perwinkle cardinal] and dior creme de blush in "pareo".



after trying out three different shades- two shimmer, one cream- i can say that i'm truly impressed with this formula. it's similar in terms of feel to chanel's glossimers, but a little less tacky. it's very slick. it also seems to hang on for a long time, sort of like the original armani glosses. they aren't quite as long-lasting as the original armani glosses and definitely not as long-lasting as their own glossy stains [which are not exactly a gloss anyway], but they do last longer than any other formula i've tried. they're a little tacky once they set, but they aren't what i'd call sticky- just enough to let you know they're still there.

the applicator, shaped like a small pair of perfectly pursed lips [illustrated above], is not merely a gimmick- it does make it easier to get smooth, even coverage; i got the best results using the outside of the "lower lip" on my lower lip and the inside of the wand along my upper lip. this will make more sense when you see the applicator. i'm not one to notice such things very often, so the fact that i did likely means that you'll appreciate it even more if you pay attention to details.

all the glosses have that same, overpowering rotting fruit smell as the rouge volupte lipsticks, which is off-putting to me and likely will be to anyone who is scent-sitive [never pun again -ed.]. i was concerned that the formula wouldn't work for me- hence trying a tester before committing to a full tube- because the rouge volupte lipsticks are murder on my lips. i seem to be allergic to an ingredient, the result of which is that the lipsticks quickly suck all the moisture out of my lips until they are dry enough to crack. it also means that the problems that are minor inconveniences for others- the propensity to bleed around the edges and the uneven wear- are extremely pronounced for me. happily, though, the glosses pose no such problem. they seem to leave my lips nicely hydrated and i didn't notice any bleeding, although there was a little feathering with "terriblement fuchsia". i'd recommend using a clear lip liner with the brighter shades to mitigate this.

here's swatches of all three shades together:
l to r :: rose orfevre, corail trapeze, terriblement fuchsia

l to r :: rose orfevre, corail trapeze, terriblement fuchsia
note :: "corail trapeze" does not have shimmer. any flecks that you see in the swatch were stuck on the wand. sorry about that!

here are the links to my previous looks and capsule reviews for these glosses:

rose orfevre
corail trapeze

colour-wise, i'm surprised to say that my favourite of the three i tried was "corail trapeze". although it didn't last as long as the shimmery ones, i liked how it combined with my natural lip colour. too often, corals look thick and fake on my lips, as if they're unable to connect with my natural colouring. "rose orfevre" is not especially original, but it is a very nice version of a shimmery nude pink if that's what you're looking for.

there are twenty-three shades available, including two that are intended as top coats [clear and gold shimmer] and one that can be used to deepen lipsticks [glossy, sheer black]. all are available at yves st. laurent counters [in canada, that means select bay locations and holt renfrew]. a selection is also available at sephora.

Comments

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

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 …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…