Friday, February 26, 2010

Maybelline Minty

Once again, I have succumbed to the limited-edition power...It's a good thing that I only had to skip one chicken sandwich for this junk.
Maybelline Minty Nail color is from the spring 2010 Sweet Thing (aka, Knocking-off-MAC-like-it's-nobodies-business) Collection and is a pastel mint green that washes me out and look funny.I guess it's not really Maybelline's fault (since they copied it straight from MAC) as I was never a fan of pastel: When I wear color, want it rich and bold!
First off (not complaining about the color), the formula of this Maybelline sucks (as usual), the first layer is extremely streaky and chalky (as I can literally see the condensation inside the liquid on my nail)and the second one is not much better at it get on like a gunk of glue. The brush isn't helping either, as Maybelline try to do that OPI double brush thing with this applicator, which only made this polish more of a pain in @$$ to apply.
Luckily, if you get a hang of it (apply a big glob then wait for it to dry), it will eventually settle to a smooth finish (it takes a lot more than 50 seconds to dry though) with a slight shine. I would say I am alright with the color as it's not the most unflaterring green I have tried.
On the bright side, minty reminds me of the dress Blair wore in that equestrian event though(I doubt I would ever wear that color, pastel green makes my skin look like pork)...


  1. hmm..the minty dress looks great, but minty nails..well your nails are short and sweet, so its ok, but I can imgaine myself wearing it..and it screams..."ahhmm..uhmm.." :)

  2. I actually like the color, but it's a shame the formula is so bad and it makes it hard to apply it. I don't think I'll bother with this one.

  3. At least it looks somewhat opaque!

  4. I totally agree with you. I was attracted to the pastel creme colors but I swatched it in store and the formula is horrible. Really streaky and for some reason the batches my store had, had weird clumps in it. Not to mention the brush sucks too. They really need to redesign their nail polishes...

  5. Nikki:
    Is it that trashy?
    Yeah, I wouldn't bother if there was a tester there...
    It was 3 ulra thick better be opaque.
    Ruby Chopsticks:
    Urgh...I hope you are talking about swatching the tester provided in your drugstore because I think opening things up and testing them (trying things out at other people's expense) is morally wrong...

  6. Surprisingly, there actually was a tester at the drugstore I visited, but I honestly have no problem with people swatching nail polish. Other things yes, but not nail polish. In any case, you could just buy the nail polish - try it on at home- decide you don't like it- and bring it back to the store to return. They'll just put it right back where it came from anyway and it's pretty much the same thing as swatching it in store w/o a tester. Most drugstores accept returns of cosmetic items even if used - I don't even think it matters what the reason is. I could probably debate about morality and ethics all day (I took a biomedical ethics course) but I just want to ask, do you think that it's morally wrong of the drugstore to allow returns then?

  7. Ruby Chopstick:
    Oh thank you! Imagine how strange I feel that I have cursed one of my readers in the past (I have called those kind of people cheap-bitch-who-don't-even-want-to-shell-out-3- bucks a year ago in one of my comment session...)

    If I am the person to need to test it, hell yeah, I don't care (as long as they don't catch me opening up a brand new bottle) it's just a tad bit of polish... it's not like someone is getting a fungus infection from me. But as a customer who actually have the intention to buy the product, do you think I am going to be happy if I come home with a bottle of polish that has been already used and gooey (many times those people are testing nail polish such a hurry so they never close the lid properly)?

    Another problem I have on those "testers" are that they never "test" with the intention to buy. It's like if they see 3 of the same gloss/nail polish/whatever on display, they would open things up and if they don't like it. They would let the opened one hanging there and if they do...they still let the opened one hanging there and buy the ones that's brand new...

    I am not trying to have a debate with you on "moral issues" and have a competition how many law classes/ethics classes I have taken, (I have done with liberal art already) I was thinking more about common sense as I personally think trying things out/using it when you haven't paid for it is no different from stealing, as the "tester" is wearing a nail polish that's belong to the drugstore as a potential source of income or a person who will be buying it and bringing it home.

    Anyway, I am guessing that your drugstore does business very differently from mine since returned/used items are not supposed to/illegal to be put back in shelf at least in my state.

  8. Oops, I am sorry that I just went off tangent without answering the question.

    I don't think it's wrong for drugstore to accept returns because the person have purchased in the first place then feels that it fails to perform as expected so the drugstore recollects it to regain the buyer's confidence (at least they don't re-shelf it in my state) but I do think it's morally wrong to for a person use something that he/she hasn't paid for.

  9. I agree with you about the whole opening up a brand new anything, liking it and then buying an unused one instead of the one they tried. That's just selfish and not fair to other customers or the store. I didn't know return rules differed/could differ by state but I have seen used products being put back on the shelves - either that or people tamper with the packaging. But returns are a good and bad thing - it's great that you can get your money back if something doesn't perform as you expected, but at the same time there is a lot if potential for abuse. We just gotta take the good with the bad if we want that returning luxury.

  10. Ruby chopsticks:
    Now I somewhat understand your point (but I never quite get how you compare paying customer's return with non-paying customer ruining the stock, because in many states, it is illegal to sell used cosmetics and you made it sounds like "We need to deal with it", deal with what? ), I guess you are a believer of "Shit-happens-and -we-just-have-to-deal-with-it". For me, I believe in a consumer-driven economy, I have no responsibility to deal with the shit caused by people who are not following the playground rule.

    I guess some people do abuse the system, buying many things, used them for 29 days then return it because "they get sick of the color" or other stupid reason but most of the time, when a company accept a return, they are not returning/restoring the 20 dollars which a girl paid (for that blush that doesn't show). Instead, they are restoring the consumer's confidence (and putting a used/returned product back in shelf equals to ruining their reputation again). In a trust-based economy, that's more important that a 20 dollar revenue.

    OK, let's supposed that if you are in a country (like Japan) and you have bought a $60 dollars lotion you hate, yet you can't return it. Would you ever purchase from the brand again (even their toner might work magic)? In the long run, stores do business in the US way would generate much more revenue as their customer feel that their purchase was at least protected.(And that's how loyalty is built.)

    I guess I am off topic again because I frankly don't get what you meant by "We gotta take the good and bad when we return" as it sounds like I have to deal with used item (when I pay full price for it) when I am returning a fully paid product.

    I think we are just living in different worlds (you never know how different things can be just a few hundreds mile away)...


Leave a comment and I will get back to you! Commercial links and nameless comments WILL BE removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...