Skip to main content

making faces :: as canadian as a maple leaf

in honour of their canadian-ness, bite beauty has launched a limited, canada-only collection of five lipsticks in a new "matte crème" finish, plus a new version of their popular agave lip mask, all with the heady, addictive scent of maple syrup. [there's also a new opalescent lipstick and gloss, which are not maple scented, nor are they exclusive to canada. i'm a little unclear on whether or not these are also limited.] new bite lipsticks + maple syrup was a little too much to resist, which meant that i ran to pick one up the very first day they were available [which is now last week, because i've been slack about posting here this week, mostly because a couple of ferocious bouts with insomnia have knocked me flat for much of the last few days].

the five lipsticks available include three reds- a bright cardinal [candied maple], an earthy browned red [braised maple] and a deep burgundy [mulled maple]- and two "next door neighbours" of red: a bright, tangy orange [warmed maple] and a luscious berry [sugared maple]. i went for the berry shade, which is probably unsurprising to anyone even vaguely familiar with the beauty posts on the blog. i need another berry lipstick like i need to drink a litre of maple syrup with supper, but this was a particularly beautiful shade, so it just barely edged out the burgundy shade as my [first?] choice.

the matte crème formula is a little- not a lot- different from the bite luminous crème that is the flagship of their permanent line up. [when was it decided that anything creamy in the beauty industry must be expressed with the french "crème"? is there something about the english "cream" that is inadequate for these purposes?] both the luminous and matte lipsticks are very richly pigmented. i'd describe this new variation as more matte than the originals, but not something that's going to satisfy lovers of serious mattes like the mac "retro" formula. these apply with a bit of a satiny sheen that settles to "more or less matte" within a half hour or so. [for whatever reason, my lips seem to have a mattifying effect on lipstick. formulas that are quite shiny on others, like the nars audacious lipsticks, have none of that juiciness on me. it's not that my lips are dry all the time either. it's all very strange.]

"sugared maple" feels a little dryer than the luminous crème lipsticks i own, but not dry. "velvety" might be a good descriptor. the dryness isn't uncomfortable on the lips, but it isn't quite as forgiving as its luminous cousins. the colour application was just a bit uneven. i could get a perfectly even, opaque coat with a second pass and once i did, the lipstick didn't shift or fade in patches. it's definitely longer lasting than the regular bite lipsticks. it hangs on for several hours and leaves quite an intense stain- i needed to exfoliate my lips to completely remove the colour. if you're a bit shy of using this full-throttle, it would blot to a more muted, pinker shade.

sugared maple

and yes, the lipstick does smell like maple syrup, and not that cheap ass imitation stuff that quebeckers joke is made from the sap of telephone poles. it smells heavenly and very edible, which may or may not be dangerous depending on how hungry you are, which is why it's probably a good thing that bite uses food grade ingredients in their products. the maple smell is slightly stronger in the lip mask, which is nice, because the regular one smells like petroleum jelly to me. the smell doesn't linger terribly long, so if you are one of those weirdos who doesn't like maple, it's not like it's going to ruin your whole day. 

the colour of "sugared maple" is a cooler berry, leaning more purple/ pink [almost magenta] than red. if there's one thing that stops me from buying more from bite, it's the fact that a number of their colours seem easier than not to duplicate. that's true of these releases, but how close is too close is going to depend on how much you like the formula and how often you wear the colour family. mac "rebel" is quite close to "sugared maple", just a little lighter and cooler. bite "crimson", a limited shade from last summer, is lighter and redder. nars "charlotte" is warmer and redder.
l to r :: mac rebel, sugared maple, bite crimson [l.e.], nars charlotte

this is the sort of shade that doesn't require a lot to go with it, so to take it out for its first day on the job, i paired it with a fairly neutral overall look.




on the eyes, i have a combination of nars "dogon" and "vent glacé", along with yves st. laurent "sea black" effect faux cils liner. yes, i was playing around with coloured mascara again. no, i'm not sure why, because, while it seems to look fine in person, i'm struck by how weird it looks when i see photos. this is the same blue from marcelle that i wore in my hydragea-inspired look. the formula is a nice, soft, less dramatic look and it doesn't just appear to be an anemic black. i'm just not certain i love blue mascara on me at all.

i foolishly forgot to write down what i was wearing and as a consequence, i'm not totally certain about the blush and highlighter combo. i believe it's chanel "rose initiale" mixed with chanel "poudre signé". that seems right.

the bite beauty maple collection is available from now until october at sephora canada. the united states has their own exclusive "frozen berries" collection, which has five lipsticks in the matte crème formula, as well as the two opalescent shades. four of the five shades in the berries collection are different, however "mulled maple", the burgundy, is marketed as "black cherry" in the united states. that collection is also available until october, so this might be a really good time to get to know your friends and encourage international trade by sending each other lipsticks. [no, the u.s. collection is not berry-scented. just regular.] the maple lipsticks are $28cad, which is the same price as the luminous crème range.

p.s. :: the image at the top is the promotional image from sephora, complete with the pretty limited packaging art.

p.p.s. :: this is technically labeled a "fall collection", because for cosmetics companies, summer ends shortly before it actually begins. 

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 …