Cult Classics: Hourglass Veil Mineral Primer Review

Remember that post where I swore off using make-up primers? Yeah, well, I sorta went back on my word, and yet again fell prey to the typical beauty junkie compulsion of 'MUST TRY ALL TEH THINGZ'. I thought hey, what if I'm missing something, and there's a primer out there that will magically erase all my pores and keep my make-up intact for all eternity? I pinned all my hopes on the cult Hourglass Veil Mineral Primer ($18 for 0.33 oz/ 10ml; by the way, note the volume discrepancy on the outer box). Despite the ridiculous price tag, a lot of beauty bloggers dub it as their must-have and keep purchasing it again and again - so that surely stands for something, right?

I bought the smaller travel size to start with - even though it's less economical in terms of price per ounce than the regular bottle, I was not going to shell out $52 on a primer; I haven't completely lost my mind... yet. I quite like the packaging: it's a sturdy frosted glass bottle with a pump, and I like being able to see how much product I have remaining inside. Now, the claims for this primer are that it's a mineral-based, water-resistant product that 'neutralizes the skin, minimizes shine, and creates a smooth, uniform canvas for flawless makeup application' (from Sephora's website). It's supposed to reduce the appearance of pores and fine lines by 'evenly distributing light' across your skin - quite a similar idea to Hourglass' Ambient Lighting Powders, no?

I was rather surprised by the texture of the Veil; most of the primers I've tried thus far were quite thick gels or creams, with the exception of Laura Mercier's lotiony Foundation Primer, but the Hourglass' version is ever thinner than that - you can see in the photo that it's starting to run when I tilt my hand. The liquidy texture allows me to spread even a small amount evenly across my T-zone, and the primer blends in quite well. The Mineral Primer contains physical sunscreens (4.2 % zinc oxide and 2.45% titanium dioxide), and like most mineral SPFs, it does leave a bit of a white cast on the skin initially, although on my fair skin, I've found that it disappears within a couple minutes and doesn't interfere with foundation application.

To test the performance of the Hourglass Veil, I applied it on half of my face, leaving the other half bare for one day, and another day, applying a Benefit Stay Flawless 15 Hour Primer to compare. In both tests, I've found that the Hourglass primer did indeed minimize the appearance of pores on my nose and inner cheeks. My skin felt soft and smooth, although I didn't find my foundation applied any different on top, and the primer did nothing to soften or conceal my dry patches. As for longevity, I have not found the Hourglass primer to significantly extend the wear of my foundation, or slow down/ prevent my usual oil breakthrough. I paired the Veil with a longwearing, mattifying foundation anyway, so maybe I'd notice a bigger difference with a dewier, more moisturizing formula, but I'm just speculating here.

To be quite honest, I've found that this hyped-up 'miracle' primer is in fact quite similar to... a liquid sunscreen. To me, it has that same runny texture and lightweight siliconey feel as most Japanese and Korean face sunscreens, and it leaves the same finish on the skin, even down to that slight white cast. Compared to the Mentholatum Sunplay SPF50+ sunscreen I reviewed here, it has more of a matte finish and feels lighter on the skin, but the Sunplay is meant to be a moisturizing product, and there's plenty of Korean sunscreen formulas meant for oily and combo skin that I think would perform rather similarly to the Hourglass product at a fraction of the price, giving you better sun protection than just SPF 15.

I'm glad to have gotten the Hourglasss Mineral Primer out of my system, but for me it's definitely not a must-have, and while it does make my skin look more poreless, it's not an essential step in my make-up routine. Now that I've tried it, I think I'll just stick to using my favorite sunscreens in lieu of make-up primers. Have you tried the Hourglass Veil? What is your favorite way of priming your face for make-up application?

Perfectly Poreless: YSL Touche Éclat Blur Primer and Perfector*

For a person who's always been very ambivalent when it comes to make-up primers, I sure own and try quite a few on a regular basis. I was recently selected to receive the Influenster YSL VoxBox, which contained two new priming products from the YSL Touche Éclat range: the YSL Touche Éclat Blur Primer* ($52 for 1 oz, I was sent a deluxe 10ml sample) and the Touche Éclat Blur Perfector* ($55 for 0.33 oz).

Let's make this short and snappy and start with the Blur Primer*. The product comes in a beautiful clear glass bottle - my mini has a spatula applicator, but I believe the full size comes with a pump. The product itself is a clear, somewhat thick gel with suspended particles of gold microglitter, and a beautiful fresh, fruity fragrance. Yeah, I know what you're thinking - microGLITTER?! Those were my exact thoughts as well: when you spread the primer around on your face, you're left with little glittering specks here and there, and they even peek through any foundation that you layer over the top. Definitely not my idea of an illuminating effect, not unless you want to look like a Cullen (Sorry. I just had to go there).

Other than this drawback, it's a perfectly nice silicone primer. On my combination skin with enlarged pores, it spreads very easily (it thins out more on the skin than something like the Smashbox primer), fills out most of my pores nicely, and makes foundation blending much easier. I don't think it particularly extends the wear of my make-up, but it doesn't make me any more greasy by the end of the day either. Would I pay $52 for a full size? No ma'am, but then again, I'm not a huge fan of face primers and don't use them regularly in my make-up routine.

For me, the more exciting of the two is the YSL Touche Éclat Blur Perfector*, a 'balm to powder' formula which claims to 'soften the skin’s imperfections—creating a transparent yet subtle, rosy-glow effect' (from Sephora's website). Now, this is definitely not as innovative a product as YSL would like you to believe. It's a very similar concept to Mally's Evercolor Poreless Face Defender ($40) or the Covergirl TruMagic The Perfector ($10.50); essentially, a thicker silicone gel in a compact, and it can be used either alone to smooth and mattify the skin, or on top of foundation in lieu of powder to set and mattify the face, as well as throughout the day for touch-ups (here's a slightly creepy diagram explaining this on the back of the YSL box):

The YSL Blur Perfector* packaging is absolutely beautiful: a weighty powder pink and gold compact that comes with a standard high-end velour pouch and a little application sponge embossed with the YSL logo. In certain lights and under very, very close scrutiny, I was able to detect some miniscule opalescent particles in the balm, but I can't see them on my fingers or on my face, and they didn't even show up in the close-up photo.

I'm not lucky enough to be able to use the Blur Perfector on its own instead of foundation, but I tested it both as a foundation primer and to set my make-up instead of powder, and I like it a lot for both of these functions. For both applications, I get a little product on my fingers by swirling them in the compact, and then pat - not blend - onto my skin. It fills most pores and fine lines just as well as the Blur Primer, but looks more matte and feels more lightweight. I do feel that with the Perfector, my foundation doesn't get as shiny on the T-zone throughout the day; and where a little shine comes through, I don't even need to add any more product - I just pat my skin again with my fingers, and once again, it looks fresh, smooth and matte.

I don't see any brightening 'rosy glow' effect on my skin with the Blur Perfector, but I will say that as a mattifier, it trumps regular setting/ blotting powder because it's virtually undetectable on the skin - no cakiness in sight. So it gives a matte finish to the skin (it's so effective that even on my combo skin, I felt the need for a highlighter to bring more dimension to the face), but it still looks quite natural, which I think would make it a great option for drier skintypes. One thing I should mention on the topic of dry skin is that it exaggerates flakiness; you can see that around my nose in the close-up shot below:

In the face photos, I've used the Blur Primer under my foundation (Estee Lauder Double Wear Light) and the Blur Perfector on my T-zone to set the face. All in all, big thumbs up for the Blur Perfector, and somewhat of a half-hearted shrug for the Blur Primer - it's alright, but a bit... generic, if you know what I mean. I also don't really understand why these two products were released in the brightening Touche Éclat range, other than to profit on a cult name - they do not add any significant glow to the skin.

While I was happy to trial these two blurring products and ended up really loving the YSL Blur Perfector, but I have to admit that I remain unconvinced when it comes to primers. I feel that these days, probably 95% of foundations contain silicones anyway, making separate silicone primers a bit redundant - and while I would like to have my pores appear smaller, I don't think this additional step makes such a huge difference when used with an already smoothing/ pore-filling foundation formula. What do you guys think? Do you use primers on a regular basis, or is a step you're happy to skin in your everyday routine?

*Disclaimer: I received the two YSL products featured in this post complimentary for testing purposes from Influenster (anyone can sign up for free here, you don't need a blog or YouTube channel - just social media outlets). All opinions are 100% honest and unbiased, no matter if the products featured were purchased with my own monies or provided as free press samples. Thank you for reading!

Grey Pearl Dupe? Kiko Long Lasting Eyeshadow Stick no. 25

Oh, my never ending obsession with cream eyeshadow sticks - I don't even know myself what I'm looking for anymore, because I've sure already found more than enough stellar formulas. But somehow I felt compelled to get a Kiko Milano Long Lasting Stick 8 Hour No Transfer Eyeshadow ($12 for 1.64g/ 0.05 oz) in the shade number 25, one of the most popular products from the brand. At the time of purchase at the Kiko store in Queens, my thinking was that 25 seemed very similar to one of my all-time favorite eyeshadow crayons, the Laura Mercier Caviar Stick in Grey Pearl, reviewed here, but at less than half the price. So... is it all that similar?

Shade-wise, no. Formula-wise, it comes pretty close. Starting with the packaging, the Laura Mercier and Kiko twist-up pencils are nearly identical; the plastic on the Kiko's stick is more of a matte finish and feels maybe a touch less expensive, but that's about it. The texture of the Kiko's cream eyeshadow is very smooth and creamy, although compared to Laura Mercier's Grey Pearl, it seems a bit thicker, but just as easy to blend out. The level of pigmentation and staying power on my oily lids (both pencils are waterproof) are about the same. Mind you, not all Laura Mercier's Caviar Sticks share the same texture; for example, the shade Sugar Frost is more glittery and less opaque than my Grey Pearl - also, from what I remember swatching at the Kiko store, there was some textural variation between these Long Lasting Sticks as well.

As for the shade, it turns out that no. 25 and Grey Pearl are actually quite a bit different; which is a good thing for me personally, because I'm a bit tired of purchasing the same shades over and over again. No. 25 is a more matte/ subtle satin finish than Grey Pearl, which almost has a slight duochrome shift of silvery grey over a light taupe base. In my close-up photo of Kiko's no. 25, you can see that this shade isn't pure matte either, but on the eyes, you can barely see any shimmer.

L-R: Kiko Long Lasting Stick no. 25, Laura Mercier Caviar Stick in Grey Pearl.

Kiko's no. 25 is actually much more a true grey shade than Laura Mercier's Grey Pearl, and it's also significantly lighter in depth. In practice, when worn on the eyes, Kiko's eyeshadow pretty much matches my fair skintone. I wasn't expecting that result at all when I purchased this shade, but I'm not mad at it - I have a lot of veins and sometimes redness on my eyelids, and a staple neutralizing base is always welcome in my stash. In the photo below, I'm wearing no. 25 on the lid, blended out with Rouge Bunny Rouge Sweet Dust Seriema in the crease, and the light blue shade from Shiseido's Static trio in the inner corners of my eyes. While the undertone of no. 25 is more cool and suits these cooler eyeshadow looks well, I think it should work with lots of neutral eyeshadows in my collection as well.

I'd definitely recommend you to check out these Kiko Eyeshadow Sticks when you get the chance; although I have noticed that Kiko's retail prices in USD are slightly higher than the equivalent in Euros or pounds. I may look into these again when I travel to Italy later this year; after all, when in Rome...

Have you tried any make-up from Kiko Milano? What are your favorite products?

Primer Pragmatics: Laura Mercier Foundation Primer

It's always a bit difficult to review a cult classic without hurting anyone's feelings, you know? In case you've never heard this story, Laura Mercier released her original Foundation Primer in 1995 as an industry's first, and has since added four more varieties to the range: the Mineral, Radiance, Hydrating and Oil-Free primers. If you're further interested in the story of how this product came about and Laura Mercier as a person, there's a really good interview with her on Into The Gloss that you can read here (click!).

Anyway, my second review in the Primer Pragmatics series is going to focus on the original version of her Foundation Primer ($32 for 1.75 oz.). The Foundation Primer is a vitamin-infused, water-based product that is supposed to create smooth canvas for base application while shielding the skin from the elements. If like me, your adventure with make-up primers started with the likes of Smashbox Photo Finish, you'd be very much surprised by the texture and feel of the Laura Mercier primer. As far as I can tell, there are absolutely no silicones in the formula; instead, it feels like a lightweight, watery gel on the skin without the siliconey slip that I was very much expecting to experience. It's a good thing though - Smashbox never worked for me, making me a shiny mess in a matter of two hours, and my skin felt like it might suffocate any minute.

I find that due to the thin consistency, I only need a very small amount to cover my entire face. The primer sinks in fairly quickly, leaving a soft satin finish behind; not completely dry/matte like the Murad Skin Perfecting Primer Matte Finish discussed previously but not dewy either, just very skin-like. Although it's not silicone-based, it still somehow manages to fill in and conceal any textural issues on the skin, like dry patches, enlarged pores, fine lines thus providing a blank canvas for the foundation.

In terms of prolonging the actual wear of the foundation, I find that it gives me an extra two to three hours of shine-free skin but it's not the most mattifying product under the sun, nor it is meant to be. It also seems to stop the foundation from breaking down on my more dehydrated areas. I really enjoy wearing it under lighter coverage, more dewy foundations (like Bourjois Healthy Mix Serum) as I find the finish smoother and more long-lasting. If you'd like to see how it works on my skin, I've used it in my last Valentine's Day post.

All in all, I was very pleasantly surprised by the Laura Mercier Foundation Primer, so much so that I would really like to try the Oil-Free version now, especially that it's also supposed to relieve surface dehydration around active breakouts while matiffying the skin at the same time. Have you tried any of the Laura Mercier primers? Which one is your favorite?