Manolo for the Beauty » Cosmetics Cage Match

Archive for the 'Cosmetics Cage Match' Category

Cosmetics Cage Match: Revlon True Precision Tweezers Vs. Tweezerman Slant Tweezers

Friday, November 4th, 2011
By Glinda

I am fully cognizant that tweezers aren’t really cosmetics.

But I don’t care and I’m going to do this anyway.

So, we’ve got a pair of tweezers pitted against each other that basically came about because I moved right after having a baby and lost my favorite pair of Tweezerman tweezers somehow.  In a haze of sleeplessness, I grabbed a pair of Revlon tweezers at Target, thinking to myself that tweezers were tweezers.

And the more I type the word tweezers, the more I realize what a truly ridiculous word it is.

I will be judging each set of tweezers on three set of criteria: durability, cost, and performance.


Revlon’s tweezers start out looking all nice and shiny and surgical instrument-like.  But keep them on the bathroom counter for a while and they start to quickly dull in both appearance and sharpness.  I suppose if you were the type that polished your tweezers daily this would not happen as fast, but I am not that kind of gal.

Tweezerman tweezers look rather unimposing but are surprisingly well-made and I have never observed any dullness.  Even after years of use.

Round One goes to Tweezerman, hands down.


Revlon will run you a cool twelve bucks or so, which in my opinion is awfully expensive for what you get.

Tweezerman comes in at not quite double the price, but is sooooo worth the extra money.

I’m not coming across biased or anything, am I?

Winner of Round Two is Tweezerman.  Again.


Using Revlon’s tweezers is like trying to dig out that one tiny piece of eggshell you dropped in the batter.  Difficult, frustrating, and sometimes an utter failure.  I don’t consider my eyebrows to be especially difficult to tweeze, but using the Revlon tweezers took twice as long as it normally did because  I would have to pull multiple times.  Forget about getting the really small ones just starting to grow back.  Not gonna happen until they are much longer.  Which kind of defeats the purpose of tweezers, does it not?

Tweezerman tweezers do the job and do it right.  A nice firm pull and they are out of there.  Minimum amount of pain, and minimum amount of futzing around with the smaller hairs.  I am a big fan of scientific terms such as “futzing.”   You’re in, you’re out, and you can quickly move on with your life.

Winner of Round Three is Tweezerman.  Big surprise.

The Ultimate Victory without a doubt goes to Tweezerman.  Don’t even hesitate for a second about spending the extra ten bucks or so.  Totally worth it.  I will never consider buying any other brand again.

Cosmetics Cage Match: Too Faced Eyeshadow vs. e.l.f. Eyeshadow

Friday, August 12th, 2011
By Glinda

Yes, it’s time again for a




Because I don’t trust you guys, (kidding) I decided to do my own frou-frou brand versus a cheapie drugstore brand in the form of eyeshadows.

This is probably because even though I really like eyeshadow, I don’t wear it as often as I wear other types of makeup.  It’s the last thing I put on, if I have time.  And often, I don’t.

I used Too Faced shades Heaven and Push Up (a matte beige and light bronze shimmer, respectively) against e.l.f.’s Eye Brightening quad Ethereal, which had two extremely similar colors.  Identical, almost, except the e.l.f. beige had a bit of shimmer.

I applied the e.l.f. shades to my right eyelid, dusted all of it off the brushes, then applied the Too Faced shades to my left eyelid. 

I’m using the following criteria- 1) ease of application 2) “trueness” of color, and 3) how long the shades lasted, and 4) price.  I applied no primer to either lid, and my face was freshly washed.


The e.l.f. shade came off nicely onto the brush, but I noticed a lot of product that (in very scientific terms) poofed off the  base and remained on the surrounding plastic.  It blended fairly easily, but I noticed the same “poofing” of product below my eye.  Noticeable mostly due to the shimmery aspect of the shadow.

The Too Faced also came off nicely, with little-to-no poofing.  It went on smoothly.  Not a lot of product went anywhere other than my eyelid.

Winner of Round 1: Too Faced


E.l.f.’s shade of beige did take more than one application to become the color on my eyelid that I wanted it to be.  I have dark-ish eyelids, so I usually have to apply very light shades at least twice to get what I want.  It took three applications, and looked fine.  The bronze shimmer was only applied once, and was a light bronze.  I didn’t find that particular bronze to be very intense.

Too-Faced beige took two applications, and looked pretty much the same as the e.l.f.  In fact, I could not tell the difference.  The bronze, with one application, was more intense and shimmery than the e.l.f., but no so much so that I gasped at the difference.

Winner of Round 2: Too Faced, although it was a SQUEAK.


After two hours, both sets of shadows looked exactly the same.

After four hours, both beige shadows had worn slightly, bronzes looked good.

After six hours, both beige shadows were pretty much toast, the e.l.f. bronze was very faint, and the Too Faced bronze was hanging in there pretty good.

Winner of Round 3: Too Faced, again by a VERY slight margin.


E.l.f. $3.00 for a quad.

Too Faced $36.00 for a complete kit.

Winner of Round 4: e.l.f. because how can you not love a quad for three bucks?

So, according to my criteria, Too Faced won this cage match, but came out pretty bruised and in desperate need of a massage and an ice pack.

I must say, that when faced with suge a huge price difference, there is not much in the way of being able to say that Too Faced was a completely superior product.  It wasn’t.  Granted, you get more colors with the Too-Faced, and your base colors are larger, so there is that. 

However, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the e.l.f. shadows, and the next time I find myself considering some pricey eye shadows, I will definitely keep this experience in mind.





Cosmetics Cage Match: DDF Glycolic Face Wash VS. Alpha Hydrox Foaming Face Cleanser

Friday, June 24th, 2011
By Glinda

I’d been using Alpha Hydrox Foaming Face Cleanser for at least five years. Maybe even more.  Then the store I bought it from stopped stocking it, and fickle consumer that I am, I decided it was a sign from the Big Guy that I look for something new.  That’s when I bought the DDF Glycolic Face Wash, and was happy with the results.

But, in a mano y mano beauty match, who will win?

I’m going to base my reviews on the following criteria: Anti-aging properties, effectiveness at cleansing (i.e. dirt and makeup), breakout prevention, and finally, price.

Anti-aging properties

DDF: Very good at overall decrease in fine lines.  Very good at making skin look smoother and more refined.

Alpha Hydrox: Also very good at overall decrease in fine lines and smoothing out skin.  Perhaps maybe a tad bit better than the DDF, but just a skosh.

Cleansing Effectiveness:

DDF: Very, very good.  Had a problem only one time getting some waterproof mascara off, but it was probably my fault somehow. 

Alpha Hydrox: Gets anything and everything, no problem.

Breakout Prevention:

DDF: For me, this product was very good, but I still have occasional issues.  Mostly hormonally related though, so it may not be fair to blame it on the wash.

Alpha Hydrox: Excellent at preventing breakouts on me. 


DDF: Mmm, yeah.  Pricey at about $35 a bottle.  But one bottle lasted about eight months.

Alpha Hydrox: Try about seven bucks a bottle.  One bottle will usually last about six months.


You knew it was going to be the Alpha Hydrox, didn’t you?

There is no way I could recommend paying so much more for a product that does not outperform the inexpensive one by leaps and bounds.

My only caveat being that as with any cleanser containing an amino acid, it can be a bit harsh for sensitive-skin types.

But for all others, go out and get the Alpha Hydrox.  Now!

Cosmetics Cage Match: Make Up For Ever Aqua Lip VS. Bobbi Brown Lip Liner

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011
By Glinda

In this corner: Make Up For Ever Aqua Lip in 15c

In the other corner: Bobbi Brown Lip Liner in Pink Mauve

I’ll be rating both products on four criteria:

1) How long the product stays on

2) How they match up to my personal lip color, since I like a color that is similar to my own lips, just more intense (obviously, this will vary from person to person)

3) How drying the formula is

4) How smoothly the product goes on

I applied both products at the beginning of the day, without any product over them.

Ready, set, fight!

First up we have the MUFE.  It stayed on quite a long time, although I’m not really sure I would go so far as to say it was waterproof.  It lasted through lunch, which included eating breakfast, drinking a couple of glasses of iced tea, and administering multiple kisses to my toddler. I was impressed.  Of course, it didn’t look like I still really had lip liner on, but my lips still had the color stain well past lunch.

Bobbi Brown also lasted quite a while, enduring roughly the same scenario as the MUFE.  It didn’t last quite as long, though.

Point: MUFE

When I went to Sephora, I asked for help in finding a shade to match my lips, and this is what the associate came up with.  It looked pretty good on my hand (there’s that stupid hand thing again!) so I went ahead and brought it home with me.  It didn’t really match my lips at all.  It was much pinker than my lips, and it didn’t look as natural as I wanted.

The Bobbi Brown was bought online and was a total shot in the dark.  It was almost a perfect match to my own lips, and I should no longer be surprised that I consistently seem to choose better colors for myself than the sales associates at Sephora.

Point: Bobbi Brown

Almost at the first stroke of the MUFE, I could tell this wasn’t going to be good.  If there is anything I hate, it is the feeling that my lip liner is sucking all the moisture out of my lips.  And that is exactly what this product felt like.  It bugged me all day, and the dryness can probably be attributed to the fact that it is “waterproof.”  I purposely didn’t apply anything over it, as I wanted to judge the product on its own merit, not how it felt assisted by super creamy lipstick or lip gloss.

Let’s face it, I have yet to find a lip liner that is moisturizing, but the Bobbi Brown was as hydrated as you are going to get for this type of product.  I didn’t feel like my lips were going to shrivel off my face, and I count that as a good thing.

Point: Bobbi Brown

The MUFE went on fairly smoothly, but it definitely feels like a pencil, similar to the eye liner, actually.  It is a bit dry, and thus does not glide the way I would like.  Maybe I’m being unreasonable in my expectations, but for $17, I don’t think so.

The Bobbi Brown went on much more smoothly and I didn’t feel like I was really having to press down to get the color on there.  Once over and I was finished.

Point: Bobbi Brown

The Winner: Bobbi Brown by a landslide.

I have wanted so much to love the MUFE products, but so far they’ve come up far short.  Yes, the Bobbi Brown is three dollars more than the MUFE, but at that point, you might as well go ahead and spend the three bucks for a better experience.

Cosmetics Cage Match: Boots Botanics VS Dr. Brandt

Thursday, March 10th, 2011
By Glinda

In this corner: Boots Botanics Intensive Wrinkle Reduction Serum

In the other corner: Dr. Brandt Collagen Booster

Both of these serums, meant to be worn every day under regular moisturizer, purport to boost collagen production, firm skin, and reduce wrinkles.

I’ll be using three criteria to declare a winner.

The winner will be the serum that 1) Feels best on the skin. 2) Produces a noticeable difference in skin appearance, anywhere from reduction in fine lines to plain old “healthier looking.”  This, of course, is highly subjective. 3) Value for the money.

First up we have Boots Botanics.  In the beginning of this blog, I was surprised by a bunch of Boots No. 7 love that was being thrown out there by readers.  Impressed with the praise but unfamiliar with the brand, it wasn’t until I got back home from the store that I realized I had bought the Botanics line and not the No. 7 line, but I was too lazy to take it back.

Both products were used for three weeks, with a two week “breather” period in between to make sure that I wasn’t attributing the effects of the first serum onto the second.

So, on to the fight!

The Boots Botanic serum felt lovely on my skin.  It has a very velvety texture that I liked a lot.  It seemed to absorb well into the skin, although I certainly wouldn’t use it in place of a moisturizer.

Dr. Brandt Collagen Booster has a more gel-like texture, but it also absorbed well.  To be honest, it seemed like I could feel it on my skin during the day, as opposed to the Boots, which does a nice disappearing act once applied. It also felt a bit tingly the first few applications, but that wore off after about two days.

Point to Boots!

Boots Botanic has somewhat reduced the two fairly prominent (to me, anyway) vertical frown lines on my forehead that I am using as a performance barometer.  It seemed like they went away to a point, and then the serum just sort of threw its hands up in defeat.  My skin doesn’t look very bright, but I would have to say it looks better than before I began using it.

Dr. Brandt’s Collagen Booster made a rather shocking impact on those stubborn wrinkles.  They all but disappeared.  I had to really get close to the mirror to see them.  It was this short of amazing.

It also seemed like my skin was brighter and younger looking. 

Point to Dr. Brandt’s!

Now, value for the money.

This is where the opponents are both getting dizzy and it looks like they are both ready to pass out from sheer exhuastion.

Because although the Boots Botanics did not perform as well overall in affecting the actual look of my skin, it only costs about fourteen bucks for one fluid ounce.

The Dr. Brandt Collagen Booster costs $75.00 for one fluid ounce.

Is the Dr. Brandt really worth $61.oo more a pop?

Even though I have say that the Dr. Brandt is a better product than the Boots Botanics, (as well it should be for that much money!) I have a truly hard time heartily recommending a product that is so very pricey.  At this stage in my personal wrinkle game, I am loathe to spend that amount.  I can’t say that at some point a few years down the road that I won’t change my tune, though.

Ding, ding, ding…

A draw!

Cosmetics Cage Match: Pixi Endless Silky Eye Pen VS. MAKE UP FOR EVER Aqua Eyes

Thursday, February 24th, 2011
By Glinda

On a trip to Target not too long ago, I picked up Pixi’s Endless Silky Eye Pen in Deep Plum.  I have greenish-blue eyes, and I was getting tired of black eyeliner.  I’ve used plum eyeliner with great success before, and decided to try it again.  I had read no reviews about the Silky Eye Pen, but it was sheer chance that I chose it out of all the brands in the store.  Oh, and the fact that not too many brands make a plum-colored eyeliner had a lot to do with it as well. 

Later that week, I went to Sephora, and in the heady rush of being in my favorite store, I bought another plum eyeliner, Aqua Eyes 4L, this time from MUFE .  One of the Sephora ladies pointed me to it, and told me I wouldn’t be disappointed. 

Dun, dun, dun, foreshadowing!

Anyhoo, I decided to pit Pixi versus MUFE in an eye-to-eye fight.  Winner would be the one who 1) was easier to apply 2)  had the best color and 3) stayed the longest.  Pixi went on the left eye, MUFE on the right. Both are touted as long-lasting and waterproof.

Pixi went on like buttah.  Impressive.  It has a very silky (hence the name, I’m guessing) texture and it truly did glide.

MUFE went on well, but not as nicely as the Pixi, and I had to go over my eyelid twice because it snagged a bit.  MUFE definitely had a more pencil-like texture.

Point to Pixi.

Pixi had a deep, rich plum color that was highly pigmented.  It was a nice, dark purple.

MUFE’s plum was lighter, and didn’t seem to be as pigmented to my untrained eyes. For whatever reason, it seemed more on the brown side than the purple side, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but not what I was looking for.

Another point to Pixi.

You’re dying to find out which one lasted longer, right?  Because you’re thinking, no way could MUFE lose every category!

MUFE did not last nearly as well as the Pixi, which looked pretty much the same at the end of the day as when I had first applied it.

Pixi for the win!

I went into this thinking that for sure MUFE was going to kick some major Pixi butt, however, that was clearly not the case.

Pixi isn’t exactly cheap at only three dollars less than the MUFE, but I would buy it even if it was more expensive.

Shocking, isn’t it?

Disclaimer: Manolo the Shoeblogger is not Manolo Blahnik
Copyright © 2004-2009; Manolo the Shoeblogger, All Rights Reserved

  • Recent Comments:

  • Subscribe!


    Manolo the Shoeblogger

    Restore Hormally Aging Skin


  • Archives:

  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010