I already posted about the warm pinks and corals; today, I cover everything else!
Positively Dashing is a Pro Longwear Lipcreme, described as a "mid-tone 'berry' blue-red". It's a medium plum in a formula that's supposed to be lightweight with a creamy finish. It's relatively lightweight, but creamy? Not so much. I find it wears best when I apply and blend with my finger and repeat a couple times; then it isn't as uneven, and it lasts me 2-3 hours before needing to touch up, which isn't exactly long-wearing, but is longer-wearing than some. Unlike Violine Précieux (which is almost exactly the same shade), it doesn't dry my lips out, but it doesn't moisturize them, either, so it has the effect of making my lips look a bit shriveled. This is not ideal, as I have actually very nice lips, so I will continue looking for the plum lipstick of my dreams, but Positively Dashing will do for the time being. As long as I top it with balm. Grade: B-/C+
Lustering is a brighter and more pigmented pink ("outspoken", according to MAC), though not fully opaque; it is also a Lustre, which seems just shocking, given the name. It's the bolder, brighter, pinker sister to Plumful, though they look very different on the lips. It lasts around an hour and a half on me, and is also easily reapplied. I don't find it as versatile as Sweetie, but it's unique in my stash (I don't have many true pinks), so I'm glad to have the sample size. Grade: B+
The Pinks and Plums
 |
| Left to right: MAC Positively Dashing, Shiseido Nymph, MAC Plumful, Revlon Sugar Plum, Golden Rose Perfect Shine Lipstick 239, Dior Atout Coeur, L'Oreal Rose On and On, MAC Lustering, MAC Sweetie |
 |
| I'm not sure why I look surprised here. |
MAC Sweetie is a semi-sheer medium cool pink with silver shimmer (MAC's "ultra-sweet pink" isn't the most helpful color descriptor...), in the Lustre formula. It's more muted than Plumful, which makes it more of a nude on me, and it's a good choice when I'm wearing a bold cool eye. The longevity isn't great, but I get upwards of an hour before I need to reapply, which requires no mirror. It's neither drying nor moisturizing, and it has the typical MAC vanilla scent. I like it. Grade: B+
Hot Tahiti is a Glaze, which are supposed to be shiny and sheer. It's sort of both of those, though it's not what I would call a "glossy" lipstick. The color is very nice, a neutral red with shimmer (I don't get any of the coral that MAC claims is there), but I do not like the formula. The sheerness combined with slight slip means it slides and gathers unappealingly on my lips. It's not super noticeable, because again, it is pretty sheer, but it's far from ideal. The longevity is also crap; I get less than an hour before it's basically all gone. My conclusion? I don't like the Glazes, and I can get a similar effect (superior, actually) from Lipstick Queen Cosmos, so I have no need for this. Grade: C-
Candy Apple is a Sheen Supreme, and you already know that's not my favorite formula. Christine said it was similar to Guerlain Chamade, which is a fantastic color but the formula didn't work so great for me (it's been passed on to someone who loves it as it should be loved!), so I was hoping Candy Apple could be a replacement. This was before I knew I didn't like the Sheen Supreme formula, of course. Turns out, on my skin tone, it's not really close to Chamade at all. Candy Apple pulls very red on me with just a smidge of plum (really not the "midtonal warm plum" MAC deems it), while Chamade was quite coral and not plum in the least. Oh well! Grade: C+
What do you think?
The Reds
 |
| Left to right: MAC Hot Tahiti, MAC Candy Apple, Lipstick Queen Cosmos, Lipstick Queen Thriller, Shu Uemura PK 375 |
What do you think?
