I have been using Clinique's Lash Power mascara on my bottom lashes since it was launched several years ago because it is a tubing mascara that DOES NOT smudge ever and the brush is quite small and skinny so when I saw this I had to try it. Lash Power is holy grail for my very, very long bottom lashes. I believe this is the same formulas as it comes off with warm water and wears like iron without smudging. I would not buy it again because it takes more than twice the time to coat my (very long) lashes. The Lash Power brush is much more efficient and yet allows me to tease out every single little hair in the corners. I suspect that for people with sparse or short lower lashes this would work beautifully. I would not buy this again but I certainly am a going to use LP as my lower lash mascara as long as they make it.
This product looks faintly ridiculous - like a dolls mascara. But the price is lower to match, which is a big plus.
I have invisible lashes, and only bought it because it wasn't expensive. I was sceptical. But it gives you twiggy lashes! I had absolutely no idea that I even had such long lashes on the bottom.
But of course any mascara can coat your bottom lashes. But this stuff is a tubing mascara and does.not.budge.
The only con is that it's v. wet, and may get onto your skin whilst you're applying. But since it stays wet, you can wipe it off without any residue.
I love it!!! I bought it without trying it and im glad i went out on a limb and bought it, when i put it on i was shocked at how long it made my bottom lashes look, i had the twiggy look with just one application of mascara. I love this and will definately buy again :D
I've only used this 3 times, but so far, I'm impressed. I have very light colored lashes to begin with, so using mascara on my bottom lashes has always been a must. At first I thought this was kind of gimmick-y and not really necessary...I once tried out Maybelline's Lash Discovery w/ the thin tiny brush, and was not a fan, so how would this Clinique version be different? Well for one, the brush is even tinier than the LD brush which makes it easier to control and get into tight areas...like the upper lashes at the very inner corner of your eyes. Secondly, The formula is more wet compared to the LD so it coats better (I never knew I had so many lower lashes!)...although I think it's still just a bit too wet for my liking, in a week it will be perfect. Thirdly, it stays put! It doesn't flake or run or budge throughout the day.
Overall, is it necessary? No. But for $10 and the nice effect it gives, I'd say it's worth a try. And for reference I bought this in the black/brown version and it matches perfectly with my Maybelline Full & Soft in black/brown.
I'm glad to have found this mascara for my bottom (and the top inner) lashes. I feel that the formula could be better in that I don't like not being able to remove it with my regular eye makeup remover. The whole water and washcloth thing kind of bites, IMO. I think the real winner is the teensy brush, actually. Any mascara with a thinner consistency would work well with this brush, I would think. Overall, however, I'm satisfied, because all of my tiny lashes really do benefit from this product.
UPDATE (2012-02-17): BOYCOTTING RE. CURRENT ANIMAL TESTING FOR CHINESE MARKET
This is nearly the same formula as Clinique's Lash Power (full ingredients for both at end of review)--their main "tubing" mascara--but repackaged in a smaller tube, with a teeny brush.
Being a liker of Clinique mascaras and always keen to try out new mascaras anyway, I tried this one out when it first appeared. Overall conclusions: not impressed.
The pros: some of the same pros of Lash Power (see reviews): good formula, good on sensitive eyes, resists humidity (rain, sweat, swimming), easy to remove (warm water + pressure--and no, makeup remover or oil won't work, this being a different kind of mascara, functioning differently...)
Added possible pro: smaller tube, for travel purposes or, I don't know, going to the gym. Though the Lash Power tube is pretty dinky to start with, not exactly back-breaking or TSA-approved-plastic-bag-overstuffing.
Con (1): the brush. Tested out on lower lashes (as intended) and on top ones. It's nowhere near as good, on either lot of lashes, as the original LP brush. It's slimmer overall and tapers down to its bottom, whereas BLM is a tiny Christmas tree. Result--lashes catch on its wider base. I get better definition right down to the lash-roots with the LP brush; and the best shape I've used on lower and corner lashes is the spiky ball (note difference with Christmas tree: tapering back in at the bottom), ex. Givenchy Phenomen'eyes and, best of all, L'Oréal Telescopic Explosion. Now, if Clinique were to do one of these mini-mace brushes, with this formula or the Naturally Glossy one: that would be mascara heaven on a stick.
Con (2): is it really necessary? Being a redhead with naturally pale lashes, I've been using mascara for most of my life. Including lower lashes, as it looks really odd/silly/"off" to have dark top lashes and apparently nothing on the bottom, then realising they're invisible when you look at them up close. So I'm quite used to using mascara on lower lashes, in the habit of applying it, and have always used the same mascara for top and bottom. Any mascara brush that's up to the task of finicky detailed application right down to the roots of top lashes is also up to the task of application to lower lashes: similar issues of getting down to the roots, using brush at angles other than parallel to lash-line, and best brushes being slimmer and shorter--with small spherical ones as the extreme.
Con (3): less easy to work with and not as layerable as LP. 2nd other comments below on dry, crunchy effect. Lovely and smooth for one coat, but on most people that one coat--even on bottom lashes--is going to be barely discernible. Sure, on us pale-lashed folks, anything is immediately different from nothing; but let's face it, the vast majority of the population already have visible lashes. On them, one coat of The Bottom will make no visible difference at all. And it is a disaster if you try for more, more definition, or a top-up later in the day.
However. It's mercifully cheap. About the same price (here in Canada) as most decent drugstore regular (non-tubing) mascaras. But for the money, I'd say spend a few more bucks, get Lash Power and use it for both top *and* bottom.
"Buy again"? No, or at least, not until they rename it properly and accurately as "Lash Power Bottom." Might take a while to get past any marketing department, though...
Like other Clinique mascaras, it's fragrance-free, cruelty-free, sensitive-human-friendly, and fairly readily available. Costs CAD10.00-12.00 (LP=CAD17.50).
INGREDIENTS: water - acrylates copolymer - kaolin - beeswax - silica - butylene glycol - peg-15 glyceryl stearate - alcohol - carnauba wax - hydrogenated rapeseed alcohol - bentonite - tocopherol - jojoba seed oil - dimethicone - simethicone - stearic acid - sucrose distearate - aminomethyl propanediol - aminomethyl propanol - disodium edta - sodium citrate - phenoxyethanol - methylparaben - butylparaben - propylparaben - ethylparaben [ /- mica - titanium dioxide (ci 77891) - iron oxides (ci 77491, 77492, 77499) - manganese violet (ci 77742) - yellow 5 lake (ci 19140) - chromium oxide greens (ci 77288) - chromium hydroxide green (ci 77289) - carmine (ci 75470) - bismuth oxychloride (ci 77163) - blue 1 lake (ci 42090) - ultramarines (ci 77007)]
LASH POWER (for comparison)
INGREDIENTS: water - acrylates copolymer - kaolin - silica - beeswax - butylene glycol - peg-15 glycerl stearate - carnauba wax - alcohol denat. - hydrogenated rapeseed oil - polyvinyl alcohol - bentonite - tocopherol - jojoba seed oil - dimethicone - simethicone - stearic acid - sucrose distearate - aminomethyl propanediol - aminoethyl propanediol - sodium citrate - disodium edta - phenoxyethanol - methylparaben - ethylparaben - propylparaben - butylparaben - [± mica - iron oxides (ci 77491, 77492, 77499) - titanium dioxide (ci 77891) - ultramarines (ci 77007) - blue lake 1 (ci 42090) - bismuth oxychloride (ci 77163) - carmine (ci 75470) - chromium hydroxide green (ci 77289) - chromium oxide greens (ci 77288) - yellow 5 lake (ci 19140) - manganese violet (ci 77742).
OMG! I can't believe I fell for this gimmick! Shame on me.
I was told by the SA at Sephora I could use it to coat the teeny, tiny little lashes on the top lid that are in the inner corner of my eyes.
Ha ha ha ha! I ended up with an eylid dotted with mascara and crunchy, tiny lashes. It looked so sad. When I tried to go over the pathetic little lashes with my regular mascara (Benefit Bad Gal), it wouldn't coat them because they were too hard and crunchy.
At $10, I'm not sure if it's worth returning or just taking the loss and ditching it. I'll probably just ditch it and use it as a teachable moment.
LOVE this mascara!!!!! I never knew how many tiny lashes i had on the bottom until i tried this today for the first time. Hopefully they don't ever discontinue this. love the tiny wand