Skip to main content

making faces :: berry picking

leaves are turning! gusts of chill air are arriving! evening is longer than daytime! i get excited just typing those things. it helps that, compared to last year, the first part of autumn as been glorious. the temperature has been slowly creeping downward [although we did have a shocking run of heat last week], making it comfortable to wear light layers during the day and a jacket at night. my toes are getting ready to hibernate in boots and my lips are lusting after delicious berries and plums like at no other time of the year.

i always love a deep lip, from classically sophisticated to outright vamp and i'll wear them pretty much any time i want, but there is something to the pairing of such shades with the golden autumn light, just as bold, juicy shades come into their own on the most brilliant summer days. as a result, when this time of year rolls around, i'm magnetically drawn to try any new lipstick that has "berry" in its name or description, the fuller and richer the coverage the better.

you might recall that earlier this year, i finally got around to trying givenchy's le rouge formula for the first time. i'd passed on the opportunity to try them earlier, because none of the colours seemed unique, but having tried one, i knew i was going to keep my eye out for more. i got lucky in that they added more new shades, including one promisingly named "framboise velours", which translates to "raspberry velvet". that sounds like so many thrilling things- an edwardian gown, a quietly deadly cocktail and, yes, a kick-ass lipstick colour.



in fact, it absolutely lives up to that name. the finish is velvety smooth and almost matte [more so, i thought, that rouge égerie] with just a little lustre. and the colour is a perfect raspberry, a reddish deep pink with a slightly muted, dusty quality to it. it wears comfortably and lasts a good long time. as it fades, it leaves a light stain, or it can be applied and blotted to achieve that effect from the outset. it's a quick, single-pass application for full colour payoff, since it goes on very saturated and completely evenly.

   
framboise velours
framboise velours
there are a lot of shades out there, which is something i knew when i purchased it, but i find that the dustiness i mentioned above makes this one look a little different. it's just a wee bit greyer than other shades that are close to it and therefore quite distinctive. bite "crimson" is deeper and a little redder. guerlain "gladys" is brighter, pinker and shimmery.

l to r :: bite crimson [l.e.], frmaboise velours, guerlain gladys
i think that "framboise velours" would be an excellent option for people who are drawn to shades like "gladys", but who are worried that they might be too loud. for me, this is a shade that i find a little easier to pull off in more conservative settings, when i don't necessarily want to stand out, like in police lineups.

this shade lends itself to pretty simple makeup, since it's strong enough to carry a look on its own. i've been favouring neutral eyes with the same sort of greyish cast as the lipstick and a deep pink or berry shade on the cheeks. to whit:

 


products used

the base ::
ysl teint touche éclat foundation "b10"
dior star concealer "01"
mac paint pot "painterly"
mac fluidline brow gel "deep dark brunette"

the eyes ::
mac e/s "my fantasy" [light grey-gold]
mac e/s "fall in lust" [misty taupe]
mac e/s "dance in the dark" [sooty greenish grey with gold shimmer]
mac e/s "rising passions" [black brown]
gosh pen liner "brown"
guerlain cils d'enfer maxi lash mascara

the cheeks ::
marc jacobs blush "tantalizing" [deep cool raspberry]

the lips ::
givenchy le rouge l/s "framboise velours"

the givenchy line is available exclusively through sephora, which is where i purchased mine. weirdly, there are two versions of the shade: a regular version, which appears to be part of the permanent assortment and costs $38cad; and a limited edition version in a burgundy [rather than black] case, which costs $5 more. i don't get hugely excited about limited packaging, so i opted for the former, but both are still available on sephora's [canadian] web site as of today.

Comments

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

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: hot stuff, comin' through

i don't even know what to say about the weather. the end of september saw temperatures at a scalding 36c/ 97f outside. this is especially annoying because we've had a moderate summer. most days it rained a little in the morning, the temperatures didn't creep into the 30s too often and there wasn't the normal stretch of a few weeks when it felt like we were living on the sun. now, we've receded into more normal fall weather, although it's still on the warm side for mid-october. that climate change thing is a bitch.

trying to think of something positive in the situation, it does put me in a perfect frame of mind to write about urban decay's naked heat palette. it's the latest in what appears to be an endless series of warm neutral and red eyeshadow palettes that have followed in the footsteps of anastasia's modern renaissance. [which i ultimately decided i didn't need after doing a thorough search of my considerable stash.] i do think that it'…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…