L'Oreal Lumi Magique Concealersobota, avgust 09, 2014
Dubbed as the YSL Touche Éclat approximate (yes, I'm aware it's an odd word to use, but I wont' call it dupe because I never owned TE), this pen has very mixed reviews, with some people absolutely loving it and some finding it completely useless. I put it on my wishlist a very long time ago, but pondered afterwards whether to really take the plunge and buy it due to these conflicting opinions. One thing is very clear about this product - despite the name, it is absolutely not a concealer. It is a highlighting pen with light reflecting particles that disguise darkness under the eyes and lift the complexion by illuminating it. I must admit, I was quite perplexed by this pen and still am as I find it doesn't really make a massive difference when I'm applying it, but seeing now from the before and after pictures I've made for this post, there actually might be something about it, but I'll let you be the judge of that.
The formula is very light and doesn't offer much coverage, but hearing the words: "if you're using Touche Éclat as a concealer, you are doing it wrong" repeated in the beauty community, oh, so many times, I was very aware that this as well is not a stand alone product to use. I use a separate concealer under it that actually covers and then put this on top in the popular triangle shape under the eyes, avoiding the area right under the lashes. It's also supposed to be used on the high points of the face, so tops of cheekbones, bridge of the nose and cupid's bow. The first thing that made me to doubt its illuminating capabilities is the shade. Though it is light and peachy toned, it's not exactly light for me, meaning that's it's very close to my skin colour rather than a bit lighter, which I associate with illumination and I detect no illuminating particles in it like ones in their Lumi Magique Primer for example.
Given how pale I naturally am, this also means that on anyone who is NC20 and darker this should look lighter. On the pictures I am using L'Oreal's Nude Maqiue eau de Teint foundation in 100 Porcelain, which is about NC20-25/Bourjois HMS 52-53, and Maybelline Fit Me concealer in Fair, which you can see from the swatches is anything but fair, so that illumination is more apparent.
Happy face! By the way on the lips I'm wearing Essence XXXL Longlasting lipgloss in 15 Coral Mousse.
The packaging is a rose gold metal-look click pen that works well, but collects dirt and fingerprints like there is no tomorrow. As at Bourjois CC Eye Cream there is a mere 1.5 ml of product inside which is a bloody rip off. However, for comparison Touche Eclat has 2.5 ml - again not a lot, which begs the question: what the hell are we paying for at all these pens?
I got mine from Boots International, but it's sold in drugstores, obviously not ones in Slovenia (is anyone really surprised any more?). Slovene's can get it on Salma.
As I said above, I'm not entirely convinced by this product. When applying it, I just don't notice a considerable difference, but the pictures tell a slightly different story or at least I think so. What do you think? Is it a noticeable enough difference that justifies owning this product? NARS's Chantilly, which is much lighter, makes a much more apparent illuminating effect for me, hence why I use it more often.
Have a great day!