Sometimes, I let my enthusiasm get the best of me. When I saw Chanel's limited-edition Chanel Lèvres Scintillantes Glossimer in Chelsea ($28.50) from the limited-edition Knightsbridge Collection at Chanel.com, I ordered it - at the same time I ordered the Spring 2012 glosses. I should have used Google to search for photos. If I had, I might have seen that, despite its vibrant color in the tube, it has no real color.This brilliant pink lip gloss delivers the ultimate pop of color, along with subtle shimmer and a high-shine glow. Part of the limited-edition Knightsbridge Collection, its striking hue is named for a thriving artistic and cultural area of London.
Sometimes I wonder how Chanel (or any other company) achieves such beautiful color in the tube that, unfortunately, translates to clear or close to clear on my lips. Such is the case with Chelsea. Once I received mine and tested it, I was astounded, thinking there had to be something wrong with me or my tube. I shook the tube, ran the applicator in and out of the tube - basically did everything I could to pick up more pigment. It's not there.I did a quick Google search. I found Christine's photos at Temptalia. Had I seen them before I ordered, I would have skipped Chelsea - not because it's not "satisfactory," but because it has little-to-no real color. Christine gave it a "1" out of "10" for pigmentation and an overall "D." I wholeheartedly agree. It's virtually colorless.
Here are two swatch photos I managed to snap in between clouds today. I saw the sky brighten and dashed outside to get a few photos. Before I could get back inside, the clouds had obscured the sun again.I had to paint multiple coats of Chelsea onto my arm to make it show as much pink color as it does. My first coat was almost clear.
Even though I love most Chanel Lèvres Scintillantes Glossimers, I feel mislead. Chanel calls Chelsea a brilliant pink lip gloss that delivers the ultimate pop of color. I don't see the pop. If you want a very slightly tinted pink gloss, you may want to consider ordering Chelsea from Chanel's Web site, the only place it's available in the United States. I'd recommend you save your money for something novel.Photo at top courtesy of Chanel; other photos by Best Things in Beauty
Posts
22 comments:
Yeah, that ain't no brilliant pink pop. They should have made it a Rouge Allure Lacque in that shade. Now that would have been gorgeous!
Agreed, Tracy! It's brilliant and clear, certainly not colorful. Feel like I wasted $28.50.
What a disappointment! Thank you for saving me from buying this gloss, I can't believe its lack of pigment. Chanel's advertising was very misleading as well, it's hardly a 'brilliant pink'.
Chanel's stock photos and swatches can be highly misleading, especially for the glossimers. You don't know how sheer it is, or if it has microshimmer or glitter. I feel that it's not acceptable considering it's Chanel. I hope they would improve this soon!
Hi VintagePorcelainDoll!
Have I ever mentioned that I think your "handle" is cool?
I hate to criticize such a wonderful company. When I do, it's to try to warn others about something new. Glad I could save you some money! Thanks.
Hi Anonymous,
Ditto! Not just Chanel. Those horrible little online squares have fooled all of us!
Wow, I nearly added Chelsea to my shopping bag the last two times I ordered from Chanel. Now I know to look elsewhere for my neon pink gloss fix. Thank you for taking the hit for us all, Charlestongirl.
Too funny! You're welcome, Leigh. Glad you didn't hit purchase.
It's such a pitty... I do love chanel glossimers, but I really understand your dissappointment. Thanks for telling us, I'm not getting this one.
Thanks, Anne. Hope I didn't just cost Chanel a boatload. :)
What a pain. Thanks to your misfortunes with this one, you've saved many of us money. Thank you for that. I'm sure you can use it while gardening when all you want is a bit of shine?
I think you need to return that ASAP. No need for you to be out $30~~ for that. Get your money back and spend it on something you can enjoy.
Hi Lovethescents,
I don't wear makeup while gardening. :) I will use this one, though, if for nothing but the pretty shine.
Hi Jo,
I'm not a big return person. I'll wear it. The shine is iridescent and pretty. It will be a good topper. It's not totally useless, just disappointing color-wise. :)
If you like the fucsia color, you are going to love the new Chanel gloss "JALOUSIE"! :o)
Anonymous, did you see this?
http://bestthingsinbeauty.blogspot.com/2012/02/chanel-levres-scintillantes-glossimer_09.html
Wow is that incredibly sheer. On my lips it wouldn't even show up.
It looks clear on mine, Leticia.
I just got back from Punta Cana and I missed reading your blog everday.
Can you return the gloss? If you can I would. I would also send them an email telling them about the online squares are misleading.
I'm a huge Chanel fan, but I just read Karl Lagerfeld called Adele a little to fat. Not sure if I want to buy products from them anymore.
Hi Northerngirl!
Ooh how nice! You returned to cold, right? It's brr freezing here today.
I don't plan to return it. I'm not much of a returner. Live and learn. It won't be the first time I found lip gloss misleading.
Lagerfeld really called Adele too fat? Seriously? Is he too conditioned to rail-thin models? Ludicrous!
How disappointing, but not surprising. Chanel's promo photos for the Fall 2011 collection were totally misleading. The products looked red, not the reddish pink they actually turned out to be. (I know, I know, I've complained about this before!) That some thought the products were actually pretty and flattering in real time is beside the point. Given that it is hard to judge colors on computer screens, Chanel ought to be more careful with its product descriptions. The company's advertisement and description for this gloss is even worse. I understand how you feel about returns generally, but I think returning this gloss is warranted, especially at this price point.
I agree that Chanel ought to be more careful, Ava. This one was totally misrepresented. That said, it's more trouble to send it back than to keep it.
Post a Comment