I would describe this as plummy/mauvy with a touch gray and brown, and with visible shimmers close up. I've stayed away from Rouge Coco lipsticks in the past because I find them to be drying, but this one isn't. It's not moist or glossy, but is quite comfortable to wear. It's a beautiful color, and beautifully executed (the shimmer adds dimension to what could be a rather flat color). However, I can't say that it's the "best" on my NC 25/30 coloring, and like the first reviewer, I at one point thought, hmm, does this make me look a bit dead? This was an impulse purchase. Now that I've worn it a few times, I realize that it sort of reminds me of some of my lipsticks in the 90s -- all the grayis plums that I thought of as slightly edgy without going goth. I think this would look beautiful on women with fair, cool/pink skin tone. I do enjoy this quite a bit, but it's not something I'd slap on without thinking. For my coloring, I find it more appropriate on a grayish day, or when I want a more "serious" look. In short, it's an almost-love/wishing it were a bit more brightening on me. Do try it out in person if you're looking for plummy, cool weather lipsticks.
I, too, bought this after seeing the Temptalia review (although I thought Chanel had the best fall collection last year). On me, it's much more muted as the first reviewer mentioned--more a muted plum/mauve MLBB--but the bit of lovely sparkle saves it from being too bland/boring neutral. The texture is lovely, as is true of all the Rouge Coco lipsticks, and I found it wore better than I thought it would and did not look cakey after reapplication. Although my lips tend to be dry, I was fine with a slick of Caudalie lip balm underneath. This is a lipstick I can imagine wearing year-round, and possibly becoming a go-to. It also looks lovely topped with Rouge Allure Extrait de Gloss in Troublant (from the same collection) on top. In fact, that may be my favorite spring/summer combo this year.
I love the previous reviewer's commentary (including the joke at the end) but don't entirely understand how the end result for her was a 3! I LOVE this lipstick. If I could turn every lipstick I own into this one, I would be happy and satisfied. I am pale (not sure exactly what I 'am', but I tend to buy the second lightest shade for any foundation or tinted moisturizer) and I have rosy undertones. I agree with the comment that this lipstick is sort of '90s light' - it has that mildly brown/taupe quality to it which makes it subdued, but it has enough pink to be more wearable, not so dated, and pretty. I think it's a surprising neutral lip, and goes well with different eye looks, but still holds its own. I am also totally in love with the wear and finish. The wear: I put it on in the morning, sip my tea and water all day, and eat a sandwich, and even though I opt to reapply after the sandwich, it really isn't totally necessary. The finish is so lovely - it's a soft matte (in my opinion) with shimmer/sparkle. The combination of a matte-esque lip with sparkle is so nice! I am really pleased with this lipstick - I bought it after the Temptalia review, and only pulled it out of my makeup stockpile last week (I've read for the Mayan end of the world!) and was relieved when I found out it's not limited edition - otherwise I may have bought like 3 more.
I initially thought it was a poor choice, but it wasn't. Probably better on my winter skin shade (C4) than my summer shade (C5). It pulls mauve, and that usually looks pretty grim when I'm darker, but this is all right. Probably because it's a warm-ish mauve with a hint of pink -- but not as much pink or warm-pink as I'm used to.So maybe better for neutral skin tones. (I'm more warm in the summer).
This doesn't have much brown (Chanel lippies that supposedly have mauve and brown, rarely pull brown on my skin tone - always mauve) and the slight shimmer doesn't show up as well as it did when swatched on my hand. This would look 100% with perfect, full-coverage foundation / more powder, but I hardly wear any. It looks completely different at dusk than in the afternoon -- at dusk it looked MLBB, in the afternoon the colour was as stated above, and very opaque. Artificial light also makes it look very natural.
I'm in two minds about it, mainly because I've used many high-end lippies and seen a heck of a lot worse, and also some that are better, in that they're not so understated -- and maybe that's my main issue with it. Rouge Coco formulas are fine, not too drying for my lips, colour opacity across the range varies, but is pretty good in this shade. It looks GREAT on the gal in Temptalia (n/aff) -- but you could paint her as blue as a smurf and she'd still be gorgeous. For reference, it's a lot less rosy on me and not as vibrant.
It'd also look better if I was fifteen years younger (ha!) because a bit more pink would give my 37 year old face a bit of a perk! However, I like it more each time I look in the mirror. I really do. It's a bit of a throwback to the 1990s -- I liked '90s makeup. But it's not matte, isn't 'greige', so doesn't look dated or corpse-like -- it's more user-friendly.
My husband says: "It looks nice enough. Between 'meh' and 'wow'. So not 'meh' and not 'wow'." There we go.
There's an old shade by Vincent Longo called Glow which is paler, even less pink and more retro. I prefer the Chanel. Some of the darker Chanel shades that pull mauve / purple -- Rouge Noir and Ballet Rousse etc. look great on me. Maybe it's a case of getting used to lighter mauve-y shades. I recommend trying in different types of light before purchase, especially if you are a C4 (Bobbi Brown Warm Natural) or darker.
I first tried this in the car, coming back from the shops.
Me: "Does this shade make me look dead?"
Husband : "Not at all. Now the axe in your head...that makes you look dead."