1-2 coats for blue and green, 2-3 for the others, but they are nice and subtle.
I stocked up on some of these, mostly because they have been on sale for a dollar (instead of the usual $2) which is so cheap for Australia. But the question is, are they any good?
First up, the polishes. Aren't the bottles cute?
I love the chrome polishes. They are so pretty and shiny, and not a lot of brands stock chrome type polishes in stores in Australia, at least as far as I know.
 |
| Natural light, in the shade. |
Firstly, I appologise for not cleaning up my nails first, and for being impatient and screwing them up a bit by not waiting for them to dry completely before taking photos.
 |
| Direct sunlight |
The blue and green chromes - Jaded and Blue Steel - took 1-2 coats for full opacity, while the others - Twilight, Hazelnut and Gatsby - took 2-3. I actually like that the gold, pink and bronze colours are more subtle, I think they look nice that way, and remind me of nice jewelery. I think they would be lovely for a fancier event - subtle and classy. Also, I just have to say that I love the name Gatsby for a pretty metallic gold polish!
Colour: They fulfill their promise of being a chrome coat, and look great. Gatsby, Hazelnut and Twilight are a nice subtle but pretty look (at least with my skin tone) while Jaded and Blue Steel are brighter and fun metallic colours. I'm completely satisfied on this point.
Application: Jaded and Blue Steel are more pigmented and only need 1-2 coats (which I feel is fairly standard for nail polish) while the other three needed 2-3 coats for full opacity. However, I'm still completely happy for all of them, as I like the option to wear those a little sheerer or add an extra coat depending on what look I feel like going for. They also apply nicely with no streaks. Again, I'm completely satisfied.
Wear time: I've been wearing Gatsby since Monday (it's now Friday) and on my off hand, there is only one finger with a noticeable chip. However, I am wearing it with base and top coats, and Revlon's Chroma Chameleon in Pink Quartz over the top. The polish is definitely chipping off of my dominant hand, but I managed to make it until Wednesday before that happened (although I had to fix one finger). I find no polish can survive simple hands-on work like washing dishes, and opening eye shadows very well. I feel like it's no worse than any of my more expensive "drug store" polishes, like Revlon or Maybelline.
Packaging: These look very similar to Butter London polishes, and are quite cute. The rectangle white cap comes off, with the screw off brush separate underneath - just like Butter London. As such they are fairly easy to apply, and I have no complaints about the bottles.
Price: $2 full price, bought three of the shades for $1. Super amazingly cheap!
Overall: I'm in love with this chrome range - hence why I bought five of them. They are so cheap, but don't feel like cheap polishes - unlike some BYS ones, for example. I'd happily by more shades if I manage to find them!
I also bought two other polishes: one in the "Bright" range (Kermit) and one in the "Pastel" range (Mint).
 |
| Indoors |
Here I applied 3 coats of both Kermit and Mint. I appologise again, because I didn't clean up the edges first, and took the photos without waiting long enough and smudged the polish a little bit.
 |
| Natural light in the shade |
 |
| Direct Sunlight |
As you can see, Kermit is a very bright fluorescent green, while Mint is a pretty and somewhat bright pastel green which is a little on the bluer side. Also, sorry that I blocked the light a little on the Mint painted finger (oops). I'm far less impressed with these, especially because they were still noticeably streaking after three coats of polish. I love the name Kermit for a bright green polish though, I think it's cute.
Colour: Both live up to being bright and pastel respectively, and the colours are quite pretty.
Application: Both were still streaky after three coats, which is enough to make me consider simply throwing them away. I'm not sure I'll ever wear them due to the bad application, and I'd feel less bad throwing them away than I would offering a cheap and shitty polish to someone.
Price: I bought each for $1 (full price $2), so I don't feel like I've wasted too much money.
Wear time: I haven't worn either for longer than it took to apply, take the photos and then remove the polish, and I'm doubting I ever will.
Packaging: As with the chromes: These look very similar to Butter London polishes, and are quite cute. The rectangle white cap comes off, with the screw off brush separate underneath - just like Butter London. As such they are fairly easy to apply, and I have no complaints about the bottles.
Overall: I don't feel these ones are worth buying, but for a dollar or two its probably worth the risk if you see a really pretty one - after all the chromes were fantastic, and these are only two random ones, so it may have been bad luck with the particular bottles, colours or ranges. Especially considering polishes considered to be drug store level can go for up to $25 in Australia full price, and can be just as risky in regards to quality.
EDIT: I've since bought Lady Lilac polish from the "Bright" collection, and it applies well - not streaky at all. So it seems like it might be a luck of the draw thing (at least for those two ranges) as to how good they will be. Even for $2 I think it's worth the risk if you like the colour!
Now, the lipstick:
Coco is a matte lipstick, and is a nice nude pink tone so I'm not really sure where the name coco came from. It is the top swatch in the photos below. Gold Orange is a shimmery lipstick, and I think was part of the "Moisture" range. Gold Orange is a pretty apt name, as that is exactly how I'd describe the colour.
 |
| Indoors |
 |
| Natural light, in the shade |
 |
| Direct light |
In the above photos, both lipsticks are only one swipe. On my lips, I find that Coco is a fantastic nude colour or My Lips But Better shade. It's fairly opaque, enough so that the scar on my lower lip is only slightly visible. Comparatively, Gold Orange is quite sheer, simply adding a orangey-gold shimmer to the lips. I feel like Gold Orange would be nice patted over an opaque lipstick in the center of the lips to add a pretty shimmer. Both wear like a lip butter, which is nice and soft on the lips but needs to be reapplied quite often. Neither leave a stain, and wear off gracefully albeit quickly and are easy to apply.
Colour: Both are really nice on me, which was not a guarentee as Kmart has no testers these days. Coco is a nice matte nude pink, while Gold Orange orangey-gold shimmer which is very sheer, and I think would be better worn over another lipstick than on its own. Coco and the pink lipstick I reviewed from BOE, the equivalently priced Big W brand, are the best nude colours I've found for my skin tone, which is very very pale and cool/neutral.
Application and Wear: Both are very soft on the lips, although Gold Orange feels slightly more moisturizing (which makes sense as it is from the "Moisture" range). The feel and wear time remind me of a lip butter, such as the Colour Whisper range from Maybelline. They are also just as easy to reapply. However, Coco is more matte and pigmented in appearence than Maybeline's Colour Whisper.
Price: Full price is $2, however I payed $1
Packaging: Cute, and plastic although they feel fairly sturdy.
Overall: I'm quite happy with these lipsticks, especially as cheaper alternatives to more expensive lip butters from drug store brands (such as Revlon or Maybelline). They feel really nice, soft and moisturizing on the lips and are very easy to reapply. They aren't what I'd choose when I want a bright, completely opaque and long wearing lipstick, but I'm quite happy with the price.
So basically, this Kmart brand is great for such a cheap price, and definitely worth trying. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment