Skip to main content

making faces :: sneaky kisses with christian

i'm not quite sure what to make of it when cosmetics companies seem to do ninja launches, sneaking in new [sometimes limited] products under the cover of a larger launch. do they not want us to notice that there's something new and interesting? is it a way of rewarding those who are really paying attention? i'm never certain. i always kind of hope that if i buy one of these "secret garden" products, i'll end up opening it and discovering the portal to a magical kingdom. that's never happened, but it won't stop me from trying and often it does end up with me getting something that deserves more attention than it would otherwise get.

so i'm here today to tell you about a new, permanent [i believe] addition to the rouge dior lipstick line called "times square". it was one of six lipsticks launched with their new rouge brilliant gloss line this spring. i've yet to try the glosses, since i'm very fussy over gloss formula and i don't wear them all that often, so taking a chance on a high end brand seems less appealing than buying a lipstick i know i'm going to like. which is basically what i knew i was getting with "times square".

the rouge dior formula is one that i appreciate. it's a good all-around performer. the wear time is what i'd call average, it's not drying, doesn't slip around, provides nice, even, opaque coverage that looks true to what you see in the tube. i hesitate to use the term "reliable", since that's often code for "stodgy", but there is something conservative and pleasant about the rouge diors. they're almost all wearable in a lot of different situations, including the workplace, in court, or for an evening out. it might sound like i'm avoiding referring to the shades as "boring", but if you're talking about investing in a luxury price point lipstick, that's not a bad option. it's like the classic fashion advice that you should invest your money in pieces that have a timeless quality, things that you'll be able to use without worrying about trends. that's what dior lipsticks are [although they're periodically refreshed, as with every lipstick line, to ensure that they don't look old-fashioned].

"times square" occupies the middle space between pink and red- i'd say it ends up in camp pink. usually, shades that straddle the two are very bold, but this one is a restrained raspberry with a slight pearl, which adds more sheen than texture. it's neither especially cool nor especially warm, which makes it most suitable to skin tones that have elements of both [like mine]. unlike a lot of more neutral shades, it lacks a tawny, browned undertone and is instead a colour with the clarity and saturation of flower petals. if you're thinking in sci/art terms, it's an appropriate shade for any spring season mix [maybe less so for the purely warm true spring than any of the four mixes].

times square
the shade slots nicely in my collection between two perennial favourites: guerlain "gracy", which is warmer and pinker, and guerlain "grenade" which is a little cooler, redder and has a more visible pearl. and at $10cad less retail, it's the most affordable luxury of the three, although i can in good conscious say that you wouldn't go wrong buying all of them if these are the sorts of shades that suit you.

l to r :: guerlain grenade, times square, guerlain gracy
about the only objection i have to "times square" is its name. it's neither the neon sleaze of times square in the eighties, nor the mass market tourist haven of today. this shade is more central park or the metropolitan museum: accessible to all, but refined, dignified, classic. so perhaps if you purchase it, you can just attach a sticker to cover the bottom of the tube with a more appropriate moniker, but purchase it you definitely should.

here's what it looks like on me and i'll warrant it'll look at least as nice on you.




products used

the face ::
nars luminous weightless foundation "mont blanc"
nars radiant creamy concealer "vanilla"
chanel crème de blush "chamade"
mac mineralize skinfinish "new vegas"*
mac prep + prime finishing powder

the eyes ::
inglot matte e/s "352"
chanel e/s palette x4 "harmonies du soir"*
urban decay 24/7 e/l "demolition"
dior new look mascara

the lips ::
rouge dior "times square" 

*suggested alternates ::  new vegas = becca moonstone [lighter; becca champagne pearl looks even closer, but it's also limited]; les harmonies du sior = nars dual intensity shadows cassiopoeia + subra + himalia + mac satin taupe [the nars shadows have a similar texture and sheen to the chanel palette]

although they haven't made as big a deal of the new shades as they probably should have [dior is outdone only by mac in the number of products and collections it launches in an average year], the new shades of rouge dior are available everywhere dior cosmetics are sold. go forth and paint yourselves!

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 …