Skip to main content

making faces :: lusting after guerlain's gorgeous gardner

the look of love...
dear guerlain,

did something go awry with your logistics department? in the fall, you released this delicious deep berry lipstick called "gigolo", which might have been perfect for the season, but which also seems very holiday-appropriate. now i find out that you're releasing "gardner", a rich, warm red with a sumptuous, although subtle amber-gold shimmer drizzled through it like a touch of honey and i can't help thinking that it seems less in keeping with traditional ideas of holiday reds than your fall choice. was a mistake made? or are you simply playfully challenging the notions of seasonal shades? not that i care, because i love your rouge g lipsticks and as long as i think i can get away with the colour, i'm going to buy them and where them in whatever season i damn well please [because at that price, i'm getting my money's worth].
i have to say that "gardner" is a real winner. it has the creamy texture i've come to expect, the even coverage, the uniqueness that makes me fork over hard-earned money and optimum points to get them. although i didn't find this shade lasted quite as long on my lips as "gigolo", i'm not going to fault you for that, because that one was sort of exceptional. it stood up very well for several hours and, although the satiny sheen of first application faded [as it must], the colour retained its distinctive characteristics rather than becoming an ordinary orange-red stain.

about the shade's distinctiveness, i have to admit that it not only excites me as i try to come up with words to describe a shade i truly didn't have in my collection but thinking about it makes me hungry. i believe that's because the shade puts me in mind of autmnal foods- deep, vibrant roasted red peppers, smoky paprika, sundried tomatoes- i'm reminded of these far more than i am of other lipstick shades. i truly don't know how you do it, meaning come up with things that are just so difficult to match. and it's not that i don't have a lot of things to try matching it to. i thought that maybe your own shade "gipsy" was similar, but it's lighter and it's much more of a pumpkin orange with gold shimmer. lovely, but not at all the same. everything else seemed either much too brown [and there's really very little brown in "gardner" at all] or much too red.

MORE OF THIS LOVE LETTER AND MORE PICS AFTER THE BREAK



when i saw that both you and nars opted for a holiday palette featuring blues for the eyes and amber-tones for the lips, i was afraid they'd end up looking exactly the same, but that's not at all the case. while i might have given the edge to nars on the eyes, their holiday lipstick "joyous red" is much lighter and, ironically, less red than "gardner".

it's a little surprising to me just how much i love this shade, because i tend to favour cooler reds, but occasionally i just meet a warmed-up shade like this and i realise that life is too short to impose arbitrary limits on one's colour palette. 

although my bank account would like to beg you to stop with the wonderful colours, i know that i will never tire of seeing them or wearing them and every time i whip out one of your elborate rouge g cases, my lips and i feel sinfully spoiled. i am certain you will continue to confound and amaze me with each passing season, even if you introduce a black rouge g with your spring 2012 collection.

yours with love and beautifully coloured kisses,
kate

p.s. a few of my friends have suggested that i'd make a great lip model for guerlain. i'm game if you are.

p.p.s. i've heard that gardner is only available in europe, but we have it here in canada. i do notice that it's not available on sephora or neiman marcus or nordstrom and, most shocking, there's no mention of it on your web site. if it's true that this colour is only available in limited countries [you know, chanel usually lumps canada in with europe too, which is odd, but i'll take it] that's quite naughty of you, guerlain! because now i have to tell my american readers that if they want this, they'll have to find someone in europe or canada willing to get it for them. [excuse me while i cackle sadistically at the thought of all the things that the u.s. gets that i never even see.]

p.p.p.s. below are a few photos of a look i did for my first date with "gardner". we went for a walk. it was lovely.

"gardner"

the lips are naturally going to be the focus with a rich colour like that, but since it's not an overly dark colour, i was trying to use slightly warmer tones. strangely, i find that the camera didn't pick up the green around my eyes at all, although i assure, it was there. i do think that these photos are a really accurate representation of what "gardner" looks like. so, yes, this is what you're in for.

products used

face ::
mac prolongwear foundation "nc15"
lush colour supplement "jackie oates"

eyes ::
mac e/s "motif" [peachy gold with pink iridescence]
mac e/s "dazzlelight" [light neutral highlighter]
nars e/s "night porter" [blackened pine green]
chanel e/s "khaki vert" [frosted olive green with gold]
mac greasepaint stick "greengrease"* [greenish black]
mac superslick liquid liner "desires & devides" [dirty khaki green]
benefit they're real mascara

cheeks ::
mac highlight powder "marine life"* [pink-coral]

lips ::
guerlain rouge g l/s "gardner" [deep, warm red]

*suggested alternates :: greengrease = makeup forever aqua eyes pencil "20l"; marine life = nars deep throat

Comments

I LOVE it sooo much!!! PS..You have such flawless skin!
morelikespace said…
This shade would be just devastating on you, for certain.

And thanks for the skin compliment. It's honestly dumb luck, because I've only started taking care of it properly in the last few years.

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

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…

making faces :: bette davis lips

the inscription on bette davis' grave reads "she did it the hard way", which should tell you something about the kind of life she led. indeed, she was known as a fighter, taking on studio executives at a time when that simply wasn't done, unless you "never wanted to work in this town again". even when she lost a legal battle against warner brothers that forced her to see out her contract, she was able to parlay her return to the screen into better roles that secured her legacy as one of the greatest icons of the screen. she was the first woman ever to garner ten nominations for best actress at the academy awards and the first woman ever to be president of the academy of motion picture arts and sciences [the people who give out the awards].

that bette davis ever became a movie star, let alone one of the biggest movie stars in the world, is kind of remarkable. after all, she wasn't conventionally beautiful, although her face was certainly unforgettable. …

making faces :: eyes without a face

these are indeed strange times, my friends. no one living has ever seen anything like this because there has never been anything close to the current set of circumstances in the modern world. sure, people will make the comparison with the spanish flu epidemic of 1918-20 but the fact is that things were very different then and those differences are not limited to the technology we now have available. that has an effect, of course, but consider the other factors: the world had just been through the most destructive war in its history. aside from the fact that millions had died, millions returned home injured in body and mind and there was little in the way of a social safety net to protect any of them. in many countries, "peace" was hardly peaceful because the political fallout of the great war plunged many nations into civil wars. so in that way, we're in a better position now because we don't have an entire generation of people walking around who are already severel…