Jan 312010
 

So, there you have it–all of the Chanel Ombre D’eau that I have in my current stash.  This project has let me to discover that there are a few that I don’t have yet, I may add them over the next few weeks and supplement this resource.  Also, don’t forget that the Chanel Spring 2010 Ombre D’eau eyeshadow in Torrent was previously reviewed here.

To see all of them, clicking the “Chanel Ombre D’eau” tag in this post should bring them all up.

For the newcomer to this format, I suggest that you try a lighter toned one in any shade that appeals to you.  If you trust your Chanel sales associate, ask him or her to help you the first time.  Above all, don’t be afraid to experiment a bit.  There is a little learning curve to using these, but once you have your technique down, you’ll find them a very easy eyeshadow to keep handy for rushed mornings when you want a polished look.

These act similarly to a wet pigment, I find them much neater to work with.  The glass vial and nicely fitted cap make them travel-friendly.  Also, the stopper in the top prevents spilling, even when the container is lying horizontally.

Please follow us on....

Jan 312010
 

After plunging deep into my stash, I discovered one eyeshadow that I did not realize that I had, Chanel Ombre D’eau in Delta #90.  This one looks like a highly-shimmery beige-gold in the tube, but applies as a slightly pearly beige highlighter color.

This will act as a nice base for a colored eyeshadow, or an inner-corner lightener.  It is  not as multi-dimensional or shimmery as the Ombre D’eau in Beach.  Unless it is applied sheerly, it can block up and look chalky.  I smudged up the far left swatch, below, so that you can see how it looks applied more sheerly.

If you are braver than I am, you might try blending this with another Ombre D’eau.  It dries rather quickly so one would have to work fast.  Because this doesn’t have the level of iridescence of the other Chanel liquid shadows, it is not something that I would likely buy again.

Please follow us on....

Jan 312010
 

Chanel Ombre D’eau series in Bayou #30 is a rich cranberry-violet, which looks great smudged on the lid.  I usually add a black eyeliner and an ivory on my brow bone.  It’s an easy look that gives a thoughtful impression.

I work this with quick, definitive movements and very few in number.  You have to work quickly before it dries.  However, like a good pastry dough, if you ‘over-do’ it by smudging and working too much, it ruins the effect.  Less fuss is better.

Please follow us on....

Jan 302010
 

Chanel’s recent Paris Spring/Summer 2010 Haute Couture show  presented some very fresh silver and coral looks.  The pictures show a beautiful mix of warm lips and cool eyes.

According to this source, the products used at the show are:

Complexion

  • Base Lumiere Illuminating Makeup Base
  • Pro Lumiere Professional Finish Makeup
  • Poudre Universelle Libre Natural Finish Loose Powder
  • Stylo Eclat Lumiere Highlighter Face Pen
  • Correcteur Perfection Long Lasting Concealer

Eyes

  • Ombres Contraste Duo in Gris-Subtil (TBD 2010)
  • Le Crayon Khol Intense Eye Pencil in Graphite
  • Inimitable Mascara Multi-Dimensional in Black

Cheeks

  • Les Tissages de Chanel Blush Duo Tweed Effect in Tweed Coral

Lips

  • Le Crayon Levres Precision Lip Definer in Pink Sugar
  • Rouge Allure Luminous Satin Lip Colour in Genial (May 2010) (can’t wait!!!)

Nails

  • Le Vernis Nail Colour in Silver (Euro Exclusive)

Please follow us on....

Jan 292010
 

What can I add to the pigment jar debate of ’10?  As background, MAC took it’s large, squat 2.6 ounce jars and replaced them with tall, lean and somewhat smaller jars.  The price for the jars remains the same at $19.50.

The Internet has been discussing MAC’s decision to repackage its pigment line for a few weeks.  Opinions vary widely.  And MAC has never issued any explanation for the change.  It’s a noticeable omission. What was wrong with the older, bigger glass jars?  No pro-consumer messaging here.  No “new or improved” packaging.  It’s slimmer, plastic and smaller but not better in any discernible way.

Old weight on the left, new weight on right

Let’s take a few things as a given.  First, the old larger size was huge. Few use them up.  Second, with the newer packaging you still get a huge amount of product.  More than enough for the average user.

MAC’s decision probably Looked Good on Paper.  Maybe if the jars are smaller, people will buy more pigments, maybe backups or something. Okay, fine.

Makeup bloggers have performed every conceivable analysis.  Temptalia has done some nicely-done numerical weight comparisons here and here.  After a thorough comparison of the actual weights provided by MAC, she concludes that “[a]t the end of the day, I think you’re still getting much more than you think (and you’re not getting as little as you think).”  For a contrasting view, Anastasia at Lipsticks and Lightsabers concludes that this is nothing more than a masked 40% price increase and, as such, “it’s downright shitty.” The Pink Sith take a rational free market approach, noting that there is little basis for outrage, “Maybe it’s because I’m a good honest Capitalist and understand that companies are there to make money.”

I get that. MAC is a corporation.  It’s rational to do their corporate thing, and change their products and increase pricing.  Expenses, deadweight loss, charts and percentages.  Externalities.  Synergy.  Fine.

But here’s the other thing.  Buying makeup is not about rationality.  It’s not about numbers.  It’s a lot more about Hope in a Jar than the London School of Economics.

I remember the first time I saw a MAC Pigment.  It was Pink Opal and it was magical.  It sparkled in the light, and it was pink and white and had endless possibilities.  I asked the MAC sales associate how to use it.

She answered in words I remember today, almost ten years later, “You can do anything you want with them.”

Wow. Powerful words.

I bought it immediately, and then I had a magical jar with which I could do anything.  And that jar would never run out.

At many levels, I know that’s not rational.  Or literally true.  But when has makeup ever been about reality?

Here’s the thing that nags me.

In January 2010, MAC shrunk my jar of hope.

And that’s the thing that I hope MAC understands.  Beyond all the rational spreadsheets, all the calculations and all the free market, makeup buyers have a little less hope in their jars than they did a month ago.

MAC benefits economically because consumers believe in their magic.  MAC’s place in the free market is all about consumers buying an illusion that they’ve created.  Shrinking the jars without any explanation feels like MAC is allowed to play in the free market and I have to settle for less.

In the grand scheme, minor stuff I realize.  But it speaks to larger issues and that’s why I don’t like the change.

Please follow us on....