June 08, 2012

La Couleur Infallible - Sahara Treasure

I reeeeeally want the Armani Eyes to Kill shadows. I almost succumbed at Holt's, but couldn't quite resign myself to the outrageous US/Canadian price difference (32$ versus 42$).

As it happends, I dropped by my local Jean Coutu and got a bunch of the l'Oréal La Couleur Infallible eyeshadows instead, including the Sahara Treasure featured below. I can't compare the formula with any kind of scientific exactitude, since I don't own any of the Armani versions, but seeing as they are sister companies, I can't imagine the difference in quality being that stupendous, especially considering the specific nature of the product. (Though the Armani colors are by far more complex and intriguing, without a doubt.)



I just need to say that I am FASCINATED by the texture on these things. It's just so bizarre. Creamy, but crumbly? Kinda slick, but feels like a powder, sort of? I just want to moosh my fingers into it (and have, as you can see in the bottom picture). Honestly, I think half the appeal of these is the unusual texture.

Though they also get good marks in the performance department. I really dig how these can be applied very sheer, like a fine glimmery wash, or can be layered up for some intense metallic glitz. I have a feeling these missed their calling as the Disco era's most versatile product - fairy AND fierce glamazon.

I don't find these quite hold up to the 24-hour claim. There is a small but noticeable bit of fading after 8-10 hours when worn alone. Over primer though, they get a full day with no problems. I didn't get any creasing from them either way, which is certainly an achievement for anything trying to get one up on my eyelids.


In natural light they look more neutral and champagne-y.


In sunlight and under artificial light, both the gold tones and the metallic finish comes out more.

This is probably one of the more user-friendly of the shades currently available, a neutral gold/champagne beige. One of those shades that is the answer to a lazy (or late-running!) morning. Smooth a little on the lid for a brightening effect, slap on some mascara and you're out the door looking chic and cheery. If your office is very conservative, it can still be used to highlight the inner corner of the eye. It can even be used as a base, to add some peekaboo shimmer under a staid taupe.

Availability: Most drugstores, like Jean Coutu, Pharmaprix/SDM and Walmart. (From what I can tell, the colors seem to have different names in the US, and may possibly be altogether different shades. I could only find this shade on the Canadian site, and it was not listed either on drugstore.com or Target.) Price is anywhere between 6$ and 12$ CAD.

Pros: Build-able, versatile texture. Can be worn alone or as a base, or blended with other Infallible shadows. Super-easy to apply and use, perfect for rushed mornings. This color in particular has a good balance of warm and cool to be easily flattering.

Cons: May require a primer for added longevity. Does not live up to the 24-hour claim for me, though it does feel very comfortable.

(I purchased this item at Jean Coutu.)

4 comments:

  1. First of all, love your swatches and your descriptions - spot on, my friend! Now this particular shade came out as a limited edition for Holiday 2011, but some people (like yourself!) may still be lucky enough to score one here and there.
    I was under the impression you were; seeing as how L'Oréal now owns Armani Beauty, it stands to reason that the lesser priced version can't be that different from its pricier counterpart, right? Yes .... and NO! While quite close in nature, there are several differences. The ETK wear on me like iron and that's without primer (my lids tend to be somewhat oily so that's a minor miracle, let me tell you!). Secondly the ETK texture is a lot more consistent and insanely smooth - freakishly so, almost. The colours as well, are as you said: more complex AND more intense and multi-dimensional. Ok, that being said, do the ETK warrant that major price difference? Yes ... and NO! I don't mind paying more for something of top quality, but $10 more than the US price is just plain old robbery in my books. Enjoy the L'Oréal cause they're a satisfying alternative to the ETK AND won't break the bank! I actually picked up a bunch back in December -- found them for $5.99 each!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Eugenia, I knew I could count on you for the comparison details. =D And as always, you do not sway me in the direction of restraint, lol! Now I HAVE to get some ETK.

      It's interesting that these were a limited edition - I've seen this particular shade at a few different places around me, and in new-looking displays. Maybe they got their stock in very late? Or perhaps they're joining the permanent collection?

      Delete
  2. I only have one of each: Khaki Pulse in the G.A. ETK formula, and Golden Mahogany (I think that's the name?) in the L'Oreal Infallible. I don't like to compare necessarily because one's a drugstore brand and one is a high-end brand, and as someone pointed out to me this week, it's like comparing a pharmacy EDT to a Chanel perfume - apples to oranges,really! The main point of difference I find between the two though, if we're going to compare, is the wear time - I DO NOT need a primer at all with the ETK, they wear so well as Eugenia pointed out. The Infallible shadows do fade over time. I think they both warrant owning, to be honest! But if you can get past the price (which I TOTALLY feel your thoughts, the price difference is ridiculous!), I certainly recommend trying one of the ETK out, as you mentioned, some of the shades are so intricate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have broken down and bought some GA since this post, and you are right about the wear time and the complexity. But for under 10$, the L'Oreal ones are well-worth investigating. =)

      Delete

Hi! Thank you for your comment, I love to hear back from you guys. =) I try to respond back to every comment within a few days.

Please don't use this comment form for self-promotion, though. It's bad blogger etiquette. And we don't wish to upset Emily Post. ;)