Dupes or Not? Benefit Dallas vs MAC Flirt and Tease

Here's a quick swatch comparison of Benefit Dallas and MAC Flirt and Tease blushes. Both Benefit and MAC have great blushes, and between Dallas and Flirt and Tease, both are powder blushes, with similarly nice textures, and good pigmentation. I have to say though, Benefit tends to scent their powder blushes, so Dallas smells a little sweeter to my nose, for some reason.

At first I thought they'd be similar in the pan, but on the skin they're actually pretty different. Dallas is more brown and less shimmery than Flirt and Tease, although they're both pretty wearable. I know Dallas is meant to be more of a bronzer, while Flirt and Tease is a blush, so that accounts for some of the colour difference. I do feel like Dallas could be a perfectly fine blush as well, though, for days where you want a more nude cheek kind of look. In my opinion, I prefer Flirt and Tease, just because I like the shimmery plumminess of the shade, but both look pretty good.

MAC Select Cover-Up Concealer: Stuff I'm Using Up!

Just look at this, guys! Have you ever seen a concealer tube quite so empty? Well, this is exactly how my tube of MAC Select Cover-Up Concealer in NC20 looks right now, all 10ml of it! I can't believe it, but I'm actually using up some of my makeup! Well, okay, some is an oversstatement, because I have so much makeup I probably have enough for my daughters and my grand-daughters and their grand-daughters. But hey, I'm using up something! And it counts, right? Right?

My concealer shade in MAC is NC20, so this Select Cover-Up tube you're looking at is also in the NC20 shade.



I thought I'd do a couple of swatches of this concealer for anyone who might be wondering if they are NC20 too. NC20, from what I know, is one of the more "common" shades MAC sells, in that its one of the shades people seem to buy more.



I know what you're thinking: What's so special about this Select Cover-Up Concealer that led me to actually finish up a tube of it? Well, to be honest, I was just trying to use it up. I personally think it's good, although not that great, and it seemed to match and blend into my skin, so I just kept using it until the tube was all flattened out.

The good thing about this concealer is that it covers reasonably well for a liquid concealer. I'd call it light-to-medium coverage. And when it goes on your skin, it doesn't feel oily or heavy, and when it's dried and blended in, it doesn't look oily or shiny. It also blends pretty well without looking cakey. So it's good for anyone looking for a liquid concealer that doesn't feel too heavy.

The downside? MAC claims that this is a "moisturizing" concealer, but I don't really find that to be the case. In fact, if you have dry skin, this can really sink into fine lines and wrinkles, so it should be avoided. To be fair, though, I didn't find it drying, but I didn't feel like it moisturized, either.

Would I rebuy this? I'm still on the fence about it. On one hand, I don't mind using it, and the fact that I managed to use up a tube shows that I did quite like it while I had it. On the other hand, though, I'm itching to try out something new. I guess it'll just boil down to whether anything else catches my eye the next time I go concealer shopping, LOL!

Soft and Feminine Dior Spring Inspired Eye: Get the Look for Cheap

Spring makeup always features a range of soft, feminine and girly looks, and while I'm not exactly a soft, feminine, girly kind of person, I can still appreciate the beauty in such looks. In particular, Dior's Spring 2011 Collection is one of those which has caught my fancy. The eyeshadows are all pinks and greys, which is such a pretty combination of colours. While I was drooling buckets over the pretty pictures, a thought struck me: Surely I already have at least a few pinks and greys in the abundance that is my makeup stash?


(Image from pleasureflush.blogspot.com)

Thus, began my quest to dupe the Dior Spring 2011 eye look. After all, not every girl can afford US$58 eyeshadow quints, right? So, I told myself while pulling my eyes away from those pictures, there had to be a cheaper way to dupe the look, or at least come up with something similar.

Here's a simple outcome using just two colours:



For the pink eyeshadow, I used Stila Fleur all over the lid, and then I applied MAC Knight Divine in the contour area, and applied a smidgen of it on the lashline as a liner.

Stila Fleur is a gorgeous baby pastel pink which I had from waaay back when, when Stila was still headed by Jeanine Lobell. I'm not even sure if they still make this colour. It's a gorgeous shell pink shade, although it is a little on the shimmery side. MAC's Knight Divine is a colour that is a more recent purchase, and currently available as a permanent shade in MAC's collection. It's a blue-based gunmetal grey shade wish silver shimmer. Very cool, almost like knight's armour. Both are fantastic shades, in terms of application and staying power.



So if you're a cheapskate like me, or just have too much makeup and don't want too many similar colours in your collection, duping the look might be a good idea. This is especially so if the look just uses simple basic colours, as in the case of this pink and grey Dior look. Have you ever tried duping a look before? Do you routinely dupe looks, or are you of the opinion that looks are difficult to dupe without the right colours?

Sigma Flat Top Kabuki vs MAC 187: A Comparison

The MAC 187 is one of the most famous makeup brushes in makeupdom. I remember when I was a newbie to the makeup world, everyone I knew had one, wanted one, or thought it was absolutely necessary to have one. Over time, of course, dupes and similar brushes came out. And since I'm doing a review on the Sigma Flat Top Synthetic Kabiki F80, I thought I'd photograph the two brushes next to each other, since they do appear to be similar.

Both brushes have comparable handle length, and bristle colour. You can see below that they are of a similar size, so if you liked the MAC 187's size, you'd probably like the Sigma Flat Top Kabuki as well. The quality of both brushes is also very good - I have to admit that I wasn't expecting much from a Sigma brush - after all, nothing lives up to its hype, right? - but I am forced to admit that the Sigma brush is actually of much better quality than I expected.



Top: Sigma Flat Top Kabuki, Bottom: MAC 187

However, despite their similarities, they perform totally different functions. After all, the MAC 187 is a duo fiber/skunk/stippling brush (whichever terminology you prefer), while the Sigma Flat Top Kabuki, is well, a kabuki/buffing brush. In short, this means that the MAC 187 would be bettr for applying product in a sheer, sparing manner (e.g. for heavily pigmented blushes or foundations), while the Sigma Kabuki would be best for buffing, or blending (e.g. blending after all product is applied, or buffing in mineral makeup). But let's explore the brushes a little more.



The MAC 187 has bristles that are a lot less dense than the Sigma Kabuki. So for more pigmented products, the 187 might be a better choice, since less product will be picked up and deposited. However, for sheerer products, the Sigma Kabuki would be better, as it can really pack on product.

Also, the MAC 187 has natural bristles, as opposed to the Sigma Kabuki which has synthetic bristles. While there are no hard and fast rules for what brush goes with what product, it has been my general experience that natural bristles do better with powder products, while synthetic bristles work better with cream, liquid, or gel products. With natural bristles, they deposit powder products evenly, but if used with liquid products, the bristles tend to absorb some of the moisture from the product, making application uneven. On the other hand, synthetic bristles tend to work well with liquids and creams because they don't absorb any moisture, however I do find that for some reason they don't deposit as much powder as natural bristles do. For some reason the powder just seems to get "trapped" in synthetic bristles, but not in natural hair ones.

So, although they might look similar, they actually aren't when it comes to function. The MAC 187 is better for powder products, and for products that are more pigmented, while the Sigma kabuki works well with cream, liquid and gell products, and also for products that are more sheer. The 187 is a stippling brush, while the kabuki is a buffing brush. They actually complemnt each other very well in that regard. Well worth owning both, in my opinion.

(The Sigma brush was sent to me for review. Review is my own honest and complete opinion. I am not affiliated with/compensated by the company for this review.)

Rock and Republic Seduce, MAC Flirt and Tease, First Light Cosmetics Sundowner: Dupes or Not?

Since First Light Cosmetics is currently having a 20% off promotion for OFAF (Of Faces and Fingers) readers, I thought some comparison swatches would be in order. The last time I featured First Light's blushes, I mentioned that there were some very similar colours for a higher price, and that Sundowner could potentially be a dupe for some of those.




Here's what I dug up from my makeup stash for comparison - the much vaunted and raved about Rock and Republic Seduce, the one-with-the-fangirls MAC Flirt and Tease, and First Light Cosmetics Sundowner. All three of these were powder blushes, and they were in the same colour family. All three are plummy blushes with a hint of brown - a bit overwhelming to look at in the pan, perhaps, but lovely if applied with some caution on the skin. And yes, I do think fair girls can wear these colours too! (I'm NC20, and these happen to be some of my favourite shades.)

Anyway, enough with my gushing about plummy blushes. On with the swatches:



L-R: Rock and Republic Seduce, First Light Cosmetics Sundowner, MAC Flirt & Tease

Now, first off the bat, you'll notice that these are very similar. Very, very similar. They aren't 100% dupes for each other, but I guess once worn it's a little difficult to tell the difference. But there are some small differences.

The first small difference is that Sundowner is a lot more shimmery than either Seduce or Flirt and Tease. It doesn't have huge glitter bits, but it's more light-reflective than either the Rock and Republic or the MAC colour.

The second tiny difference is Sundowner is more plummy and rose in colour, while both Rock and Republic's Seduce and MAC's Flirt and Tease are more brown. But as you can see in the photo, the difference isn't very great.

The last difference is that of pigmentation. Rock and Republic had the best pigmentation, while MAC was the least pigmented. Now before I get lynched by all the MAC fangirls for even daring to suggest that MAC can be less pigmented than another brand, let me offer an olive branch by saying that Flirt and Tease is a Sheertone colour, anyway, so it isn't meant to be super-duper pigmented. It isn't sheer by any means, though, and you can definitely build it up to the level of kabuki clown cheeks, but it is a little sheerer than Seduce and Sundowner.

So, are all three blushes dupes for each other? Colour-wise, I think the Rock and Republic and the MAC blushes are more similar to each other than the First Light Cosmetics version. So if you want the closer dupe of Seduce, then Flirt and Tease is the one to get, even if it's a tad sheerer. But they're all similar enough that I can't tell you which one to pick definitively - it's going to depend on your brand preference (high or low end?), budget (cheap or expensive?), and other preferences in terms of form (loose powder blush or pressed powder blush?), pigmentation (more pigmented, or less?), and colour (more red, or more brown?).