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?

dreamspeak

ok, so i've been lax about posting here. i apologise. there are reasons. i don't know if they'ree good reasons, but they include:


i've had a lot of work to do, which is nice because i'm a freelancer and things tend to slow down in the summer, so the more work i get now, the less i have to worry about later [in theory].i started watching the handmaid's tale. i was a little hesitant because i didn't actually like the novel very much; i found it heavy-handed and predictable. the series relies on the novel for about 80% of its first season plot but i nevertheless find it spellbinding. where i felt that the novel beat readers with its politics, the series does a better job of connecting with the humanity in the midst of politics. i'm dithering on starting season two because i am a serial binger and once i know damn well that starting the second season will soon consign me to the horrors of having to wait a week between episodes. i don't know if i can han…

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 :: written in the stars [in lipstick]

are themed collections of things you like dangerous to you? once you've started down a rabbit hole, does it become a necessity to complete the set, lest you be left forever feeling like something is missing from your life? are you interested in lipsticks? then stay away from the astrology by bite collection/ series that is rolling out month by month throughout 2018.

the collection is pretty much exactly what you think it is: a lipstick a month inspired by the zodiac sign that begins in that month. a lot of people are interested in getting the one for their own sign. but that's not me. i'm interested in collecting the whole damn thing. it helps that bite's amuse bouche lipstick formula is one of the nicest on the market and that i've been weeding through my collection of lipsticks to find those that have started to "turn" [smell like crayons or grow dry] so that in theory, i have room to add more. [you have enough lipsticks for three people who wear lipsti…