Treatments -Barielle - Hydrating Ridge Filler with Silk Fiber
suggrr 5/22/2008 8:11:00 PM
From Barielle's website: "For Dry, Brittle or Ridged Nails. This base coat contains water which helps to replenish the normal moisture loss from the nail due to the natural environmental process. This replenishing process helps provide a moisture balance necessary to have flexible nails and prevent brittleness and breakage. One coat will help to smooth the surface of the nail, filling in any imperfections."
I gotta agree with DCMALJ- this product just isn't as great as Barielle's Natural Nail Camo on my nails. Granted my nails aren't brittle and dry, so I really don't need the hydration this product is supposed to provide. (Though it couldn't hurt.) But as far as being a ridgefiller, I think this one is pretty poor. Not as bad as Seche's ridgefilling basecoat on my nails, but not great, either. My nails have plenty of ridges, and this basecoat just didn't fill them in very well with the recommended one coat. I can definitely still see some ridges after my nails have been painted. And to top it off, the polish on two of my nails peeled from the tip of my nails. That's not normal and I attribute the peeling to this basecoat. I've tried it a few times, and it just isn't going to work for me. If you're looking for a good basecoat from Barielle, I would recommend Natural Nail Camouflage Anti-Aging Ridge Filler over their Hydrating Ridge Filler. Barielle products can be purchased from their website, or more cheaply at TJ Maxx and Marshalls.
Ingredients: ETHYL ACETATE, BUTYL ACETATE, NITROCELLULOSE, SD ALCOHOL 40-B, AQUA, ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL, TOSYLAMIDE EPOXY RESIN, TRIMETHYL PENTANYL DIISOBUTYRATE, TRIPHENYL PHOSPHATE, HEPTANE, SILICA, HYDRATED SILICA, TALC, SUCROSE ACETATE ISOBUTYRATE, NYLON. Dibutyl-Phthalate, Toluene and Formaldehyde Free.
While Murad's Oil-Free Sunblock SPF 30 worked- I didn't get sunburned when I tried it out- it is absolutely not a product I would ever use again. Maybe I made a mistake applying it directly after washing my face, but I've never had a problem doing that with other sunscreens I've tried. The reason I'd never use this again (unless I wanted to test if I got the same reaction) is because for 20 minutes, this product itched and burned like crazy. So bad that all I could think about was the agony I was in. Ever a glutton for punishment, I pushed through and once I started doing yardwork, I was eventually able to forget the irritation. I'm glad this sunblock protected me from the sun, but wow, I don't think I'm going to put myself through that burning and itching again.
I noticed that Oil-Free Sunblock SPF 30 had aniba rosaeodora (rosewood) wood oil and geranium maculatum oil listed in the ingredients, and those sounded familiar to me. Sure enough, Philosophy's Purity Made Simple has the same two ingredients right next to each other on its label, though they're higher up in the formulation. My reaction with Purity was more of an allergic reaction, while my reaction with this sunscreen was more of a surface itching issue, but I can't think of any other ingredients that could be giving me problems. I've had orange oil on my face before and never felt like my skin was burning. I'm possibly going to go out on a limb suggesting this, but if you had a bad reaction to Purity Made Simple like I did, I'd advise passing on this Murad sunscreen.
Active Ingredients: Avobenzone 3.0%, Octisalate 5.0%, Octinoxate 7.5%, Oxybenzone 5.0%
Other Ingredients: Water (Aqua), Octyldodecyl Neopentanoate, Butylene Glycol, Glyceryl Stearate, Cetearyl Alcohol, Dimethicone, Pentylene Glycol, Steareth-10, Steareth-21, Silica, Panthenol, Chitosan Ascorbate, Tocopheryl Acetate, Zinc Gluconate, Lactic Acid, Sodium PCA, Sodium Lactate, Sorbitol, Proline, Dicetyl Phosphate, Ceteth-10 Phosphate, Punica Granatum Extract, Magnesium Aluminum Silicate, Xanthan Gum, Aminomethyl Propanol, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Ethylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Citronellol, Geraniol, Limonene, Linalool, Citrus Grandis (Grapefruit) Peel Oil, Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Oil, Aniba Rosaeodora (Rosewood) Wood Oil, Geranium Maculatum Oil, Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil, Thymus Vulgaris (Thyme) Oil
Lip Treatments -Murad - Murad Energizing Pomegranate Lip Therapy SPF 15
suggrr 5/19/2008 9:34:00 PM
For me, this product is unfortunately nothing to write home about. It claims to revitalize dry, dehydrated lips; exfoliate lips to improve their texture; and protect against UVA/UVB rays. I can't say how well it does the latter, though my lips have never been sunburned while using it. I really don't care that this product has SPF, since I prefer MAC's Tendertones for fun SPF lip products, but I guess it's a nice value add. I was really hoping that Lip Therapy would be a great exfoliator, but it wasn't. Salicylic acid works great on my face, but apparently not on my lips. I will say that I've woken up in the morning with my lips in worse shape than they were the night before, though. It's like the surface of my lips isn't dry, but tight and stretched until it reaches the inside of my mouth, where it becomes moist and soft. And that brings me to the first claim about revitalizing dry lips- in my experience, this doesn't do it. My lips will feel fine for up to a few hours, but then start drying out again. I'm not looking for a gloss I have to reapply every few hours; I'm looking for a gloss that will actually improve the dryness of my lips. I've found that Chapstick and Victoria's Secret's Balmy Nights (now discontinued in favor of another similar product) do a much better job for me. I'm going to keep looking for a better lip exfoliator since I already have some good lip moisturizers and some glosses with SPF. While this product isn't what I was looking for, it's OK, so I give it an OK amount of lippies- 3 out of 5. For the price (US$16.50), I really ought to mark it down further, but I won't. A percentage of the proceeds goes towards breast cancer research when you buy it on Sephora.com.
Please note that this product has an expiration date, so make sure that you pick up one that isn't expiring soon. Ingredients (from Murad's site): Octinoxate (7.5%), Oxybenzone (3.0%), Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter), Ozokerite, Propylene Glycol Myristyl Ether Acetate, Flavor (Aroma), Jojoba Esters, Tocopheryl Acetate, Panthenol, Salicylic Acid, PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Sodium Hyaluronate, Glycolipids, Punica Granatum Extract, Triticum Vulgare (Wheat) Germ Oil, Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis (Sweet Almond) Oil, Carthamus Tinctorius (Safflower) Seed Oil, Benzotriazoyl Dodecyl p-Cresol, Propylparaben, Triethoxycaprylylsilane, Manganese Violet (CI 77742), Red 28 Lake (CI 45410)
While my box says "Energizing Pomegranate Lip Protector SPF 15," the tube says "Energizing Pomegranate Lip Therapy SPF 15." How odd...
Clinique's Foaming Mousse Cleanser is a makeup remover designed for use before their three step system: cleanser, toner ("clarifying lotion") and moisturizer. It is not supposed to be used as the sole facial cleanser in your skincare routine; it is supposed to be a pre-cleanser that removes dirt, grime and makeup before you use your cleanser. (I cannot stress this enough- Foaming Mousse Cleanser has "cleanser" in the name but is designed for use before a regular cleanser.)
From the back of the bottle: Rich, liquid-to-foam cleanser for all skin types. Gently removes makeup, dirt. Massage onto wet face, avoiding eyes, rinse. Follow with 3-Step Skin Care.
I received a small gift with purchase-sized bottle of FMC and it lasted an incredibly long time. I was actually impressed by how long it lasted! The foam was light and airy, and it did a good job removing makeup and oil on those nights I had used just about everything I own, makeup-wise, on my face. I would advise using a separate makeup remover formulated for the eye area if you're sensitive, but if you're really careful bout not getting this in your eyes, I think you'll be fine. (At least I was.) The scent is an inoffensive "cleansing" scent and I usually never even paid attention to it, so I didn't think it was all that strong. Clinique says that this is ideal for normal to dry skin, but I'm oily and acne-prone and it never caused any acne nor did it dry out my skin.
I much prefer this pre-cleanser to Clinique's Rinse-Off Foaming Cleanser, another makeup remover designed to rinse off with water. I always used more product when using ROFC versus FMC, so my bottle of FMC lasted much longer. In addition, ROFC always seemed to leave my skin with a weird squeaky yet filmy feel, while FMC rinsed off cleanly. Were I going to purchase a pre-cleanser that I can easily and quickly use in the shower, it would be Foaming Mousse Cleanser. It may all boil down to your lifestyle as to whether this would be a good product for you. I usually forget to use eye makeup remover (or any makeup remover) until I'm in the shower, so being able to grab something that's already in there that does a good job removing most (if not all) of my makeup is a great thing. But if you are used to using a different pre-cleanser, makeup remover, or even the OCM and what you're using already works, I'm not sure FMC is something you'll absolutely "have to have." I would recommend FMC to someone looking for a product to stash in the shower or next to the sink that helps remove makeup without being overly drying.
It's not that I hate to bring down the rating of a product; I just wonder what I'm missing with OPI's Do You Lilac It? since I'm not wowed by it. It looks great on other people; on me, not so great. A purple polish on the darker side of lilac, DYLI? (NL B29) has a creme finish with no shimmer. This isn't a problem, since as other people pointed out, you can layer all sorts of shimmer, glitter and holographic polishes on top of DYLI? for lots of nice looks. Creme polishes make a great blank canvas! I have to agree with the OPI Sand-erella suggestion especially. I used one coat of Nicole's Twinkle Periwinkle (a Sand-erella dupe) over two coats of DYLI? and it looks pretty cool.
My big disappointments with DYLI? are the color and the application. I can't fault DYLI? for not looking particularly good on cool-toned me (in my opinion), since the color at two coats is only slightly darker than the bottle color. I got what I paid for, color-wise. But the application was pretty bad- DYLI? did not spread well, seemed to stick or dry as I was applying it, and was altogether not very fluid or easy to work with. It also looked a little bit streaky at two coats, though three might have been better for opaqueness. I'm guessing it's just the new OPI Big 3-free formula. Do You Lilac It? is from OPI's Brights collection from a few years back, and some bottles are free of dibutyl phthalate, toluene, and formaldehyde (the "Big 3.") Older bottles of DYLI? with black text labels and without the Prowide brush will have the Big 3 chemicals, but they also apply better in my opinion. Newer bottles free of the Big 3 chemicals will have green text labels and the Prowide brush. While some of the Big 3 free bottles may be a little thick in formulation, you can add nail polish thinner (not remover) to them to thin the formula and make it a little easier to use.
While it's a rather unique color- I can't think of another color like this is any polish line's regular lineup- I'm not sold on the formula or how it looks on me. It's a good core color for someone who enjoys creme polishes, pastels and purples. I'll give it 3.25 lippies for uniqueness and it being a good base color to have fun with. You're not likely to encounter formula issues with every single bottle of DYLI?, so I'm taking no lippies off for the issues I had.
Here's a very large picture of DYLI? with Nicole Twinkle Periwinkle over it:
On me, Chanel's Bengal nail polish is a peach with a pinch of pink. While I see gold shimmer in the bottle, I only see hot pink microshimmer on the nail, and even then, I don't see it all the time. I can see it in situations where there's a lot of light, but otherwise, this looks like a peachy creme on me. It's not an unusual color, and probably dupeable with cheaper polishes (any peachy pink with a clear pink shimmer topcoat should give you a similar look), so I'm not convinced it's worth US$19 just yet. I'm cool-toned and I think Bengal is nice on me, so if it's warm, it's not entirely warm. I suspect it's rather neutral, so it'll look good on just about anybody.
What has impressed me is the great wear I've gotten out of Bengal. I put it on the night of April 9th, and it finally chipped last night (April 17th.) Count it out- that's eight whopping days with only tipwear until last night. I did get some bubbles in my mani, but that could have been due to the topcoat that I thinned before using (OPI Rapidry topcoat), the fact that I used two topcoats (Revlon Colorstay topcoat under OPI Rapidry), or shaking Bengal up too much before using it. Despite the problems I had getting Bengal to dry, the tipwear that showed up almost immediately (so it could have even been shrinkage at the tips) didn't get much worse through the week. Bengal is a color on the lighter, less intense side, so it doesn't show tipwear as much as a brighter or more pigmented color would. Since Bengal wore so well, I would look for another bottle when this one is empty. However, according to Chanel's US website, Bengal has been discontinued here in the states. I wouldn't be heartbroken if I couldn't find another bottle- the color looks dupeable to me- but I would shell out for another bottle if I could find it when the time comes.
Here's a picture (in the shade) of Bengal on my nails:
And another pic of it in FULL sunlight:
Imagine a color in between those two photographs and that's how it looks right now on my nails.
Styling Products -Kerastase - Lait Nutri Sculpt [DISCONTINUED]
suggrr 4/9/2008 9:55:00 PM
Kerastase's Lait Nutri-Sculpt is the only product I'll put in my hair prior to blow drying. I don't blow dry all that often, but I always use this when I do. According to my bottle, it's billed as a "smoothing hair foundation for dry and sensitized hair." LNS looks like a milky conditioner in a pump bottle, though it doesn't feel as thick as some conditioners. But LNS does soften and protect my hair like a conditioner would. It makes my fine hair shiny and smooth, and it helps me achieve a naturally straight look to my hair after blow drying with LNS in my hair. Not super straight, but swingy and bouncy but not frizzy, if that makes sense. It just looks like I have naturally nice hair. Lait Nutri-Sculpt doesn't weigh my hair down or make it feel greasy, and my hair feels nicer with this product in it.
While Kerastase's Lait Nutri-Sculpt costs an arm and a leg in my opinion (currently US$29 for 125 mL), I've found that it lasts a long time as well. Even though I've had it for years, this product still smells good and still gives me great results. Once I finally use up this bottle of LNS, I'll definitely buy another one. A little goes a long way, so you don't need to use all that much. For me, the price per use (I've used it on above shoulder-length hair to almost bra strap-length hair) is low enough and the results are great enough that I don't mind paying the money for LNS, nor do I feel the need to find or even try another smoothing product for use with my blow dryer. I'm definitely satisfied with this one.
Treatments -Qtica - Half Time Polish Drying Accelerator
suggrr 4/3/2008 4:10:00 PM
I first reviewed this under Product Reviews • Top/Base Coats • Qtica • Qtica Top Coat and 1/2 Time Polish Drying Accelerator.
Wow, let me be the first to say... for me, these drying drops are not all that and a bag of chips. I got them for free with my order from Art of Beauty*, but I probably would hesitate in paying US$7.50 for 0.25 fl oz/7 mL of product. I do agree that you need to use very little of the product on each nail, just a small drop, so the bottle will last more than a few manis.
The claim this product puts forth is that it will dry all layers of polish between 5 and 10 minutes, depending on if you're using it on tips or toes. I haven't found that to be true, unfortunately, hence my rating of two lippies. I've tried these drops multiple times, and they just don't deliver for me. I am not giving up on them just yet, so I will try using them with different top coat and base coat. However, I do think I get better payoff, quicker drying, from OPI's Drip Dry drops. That's also an easier product to find, as well. I would probably repurchase those instead of these Qtica drops, were I to repurchase drying drops at all. The big positive things I can say for these drops is that they seem to moisturize my cuticles nicely, and they are free of the Big Three chemicals (dibutyl phthalate, toluene, and formaldehyde.)
* = I had multiple issues with my one and only order from the Art of Beauty website, so I advise picking these up in person (I think Ulta may stock them, and you may also find them in local salons) or phoning in your order to Art of Beauty if you'd like to try them.
Essie's Jag-u-are is incredibly pretty. A red that has slightly lighter red shimmer, Jag-u-are simply glows. I don't think Jag-u-are leans decidedly warm or cool, though if I had to guess I'd say it leans a little cool if not neutral. The finish is slightly frosty in that you might see brushstrokes if you're not careful, but I don't think anyone would notice if you had brushstrokes. They'd be too busy looking at your beautiful nails! Like another reviewer mentioned, my honey also likes this color. I received a completely unsolicited compliment on Jag-u-are from him. :-)
I have this on my toes, and that simply does not do this polish any favors. This color is too gorgeous to only be viewed from far away. Plus my toenails are a little ridgy, so for maximum impact and finish, I suggest using a ridgefiller if you do have ridges. I've had it on my toes for over a week, and while there's been a little chipping on my big toenails, Jag-u-are has worn well. Since it's a nice glowy red, I would repurchase if I couldn't find another glowy red I like just as much. It looks like Jag-u-are is part of Essie's core line (judging from it's inclusion on Essie's website), so you should be able to pick this up at any store that carries a good selection of Essies.
Polishes -Unlisted Brand - Piggy Polish - Life-Jacket Orange
suggrr 4/2/2008 2:15:00 PM
I'm not really a person who hangs around bodies of water, so I'm not sure this polish is truly a life-jacket orange. However, Piggy Polish's Life-Jacket Orange is definitely orange. I think it's a warm-toned medium (though maybe a little on the darker end of medium) orange with lighter orange or gold shimmer. It's not a flat, in your face orange creme, but it's a festive orange. It's not the best choice for my cool-toned skin, but I like to think I pull it off just fine. I don't have a lot of oranges, so if I ran out of this one, I'd repurchase it. I've only had it on my tips for a day, but it has worn well thus far with light activity.
I bought this Piggy Polish at Ulta in the regular line section of Piggy Polishes, and it retails for US$6.50 for 0.45 fl oz/13.2 mL. To put that in perspective, OPI charges US$8.50 for 0.5 fl oz/15 mL for their polishes. OPI's Goin' Ape-ricot! and Goldilocks Rocks! would look nice layered over Life-Jacket Orange if you're looking for something sparkly to layer over an orange.
While the warm tones are what make me not super love this on me, I'm sure the sheerness would be a turnoff to other folks. At three coats, I can still see the tips of my nails through the polish. That doesn't bother me incredibly, since I would just put a more opaque light-colored polish underneath if I wanted an opaque orange. But if you want opaqueness with two coats and without fussing with another layer underneath the polish, you might want to skip this one.
A picture of Life-Jacket Orange:
In the bottle, Orly's Limelite looks like a more cool-toned pale sea green with microshimmer and slightly larger silver shimmer. It's described on Orly's website as "sheer glitter," but it definitely has a light green tint. It also bears a pretty strong bottle resemblance to Orly's Emerald Life, though EL looks a tiny bit darker and warmer. However, on a nail wheel, Limelite seems slightly more pigmented than EL at two coats. But be warned- both are on the sheer side and will show the tips of your nails and the moons of your nail bed at two coats. If you want the same color you see in the bottle, it'll definitely require a few more coats past two, as well as a ridgefiller or opaque nail polish underneath. If you're trying to decide between the two, I'd vote for Limelite, despite it's size. As far as I know, Limelite is only available in a mini size- 0.18 fl oz/5.4 mL. It's listed on Orly's website as part of their Manicure Minitures collection, too. If you're looking for a more sheer sea green with some glitter, this is a good choice.
Looking for the most beautiful cool-toned light mint sea green? Well, OPI heard your cries years ago and released Bow Wow! (DP 102) in their line of now discontinued... wait for it... pet nail polishes. As in polish for pets, hence the name of the line, "Pawlish," and the name of this particular polish. I'm not going to get into whether or not you should even paint your pet's nails- that's for you to decide, not some random woman on Makeup Alley. ;-) I will be reviewing it as I would any other nail polish for human use.
Bow Wow! is a lovely sea green with a microshimmer/pearl finish. It does have enough pearl to show brushstrokes, but only if you look for them. It has more blue than yellow in its base color, making it a nice choice for cool-toned folks. If you like pastels and pale sea green/celadon in particular, this is well worth keeping an eye out for. You can find it in some salons and beauty supply stores, as well as on eBay.
According to the back of the bottle, these polishes are not only supposed to be quick-drying but pigmented enough to only require one coat. I'm sure if you were painting your pet's toenails, both qualities would be worth it, since some animals don't actually like having their nails painted and will fidget when you fuss with their nails. I, however, don't fidget nearly as much. Since I use a quick-drying top coat, the quick dry aspect of this polish is of little use and I'll probably never even rely on its purported quick dry ability. However, I absolutely must take umbrage with the "one-coat nail color" statement on the back of the bottle. Not only would I suggest a minimum of three coats of this polish, I'd also suggest using a ridgefiller or other opaque light polish underneath Bow Wow! if you have some pigment in your nail beds or obvious moons on your nails. Still, this polish is incredibly lovely and is one of my favorite colors. And frankly, it's not that easy a color to come by in nail polish, so I'm absolutely giving it four lippies and "yes" to repurchasing.
I'm not sure if this polish is free of dibutyl phthalate, toluene, and formaldehyde. It does have the same brush as similar OPIs that were made at that time- the thinner, non-ProWide brush. The back of the bottle does state that it was tested on people, not animals, so feel free to use this on yourself without feeling too silly (as long as you don't have a problem with the chemicals that may or may not be in it.)
I've worn a sample of New Haarlem twice, and I do kind of like it. I'm not really getting coffee from it; I'm getting a stack of pancakes covered in really sweet syrup with something a bit more sharp and decidedly non-edible in the background. I can understand the coffee with whiskey impression if I breathe deeply, but my first impression of pancakes is what I think of more often when I smell this. (And the syrup could be more sugary were this fragrance a little more to my liking. I admit it- I do like some foody scents.) I get no chocolate or Angel impression from this, though I can see how some can. The Bond No.9 website lists the notes as "chocolate, vanilla, patchouli" and I guess I really wish this was more vanilla and less patchouli. If I had to guess, I would say this does skew a bit more masculine, but a woman could absolutely wear this one.
Lasting power on me is not incredible- six hours later and I have to breathe deeply and concentrate just to smell this on my wrist. It's softer and less masculine (and syrupy) as the hours go by, though that masculine note (the patchouli?) never entirely disappears on me. Interestingly, it almost smells like cranberry scones have joined the mix sometimes. That part of the scent comes and goes. Something powdery and fruity..?! New Haarlem is nice and inoffensive with not a ton of personality with my physical chemistry. I don't think I'm going to pay US$125 for 1.7 fl. oz./50 ml at Saks Fifth Avenue for a full bottle of this, but it was nice to wear a few times. I'll give it 3.25 lippies.
Shampoo -Head and Shoulders - Dry Scalp Care with HydraZinc
suggrr 2/23/2008 8:44:00 PM
According to Head and Shoulders, their "HydraZinc formula relieves scalp dryness, itch, irritation and helps prevent flakes. With moisturizers, it soothes the scalp while cleaning and conditioning hair. pH balanced for everyday use - even for permed or color-treated hair." Since it was wintertime and my scalp itched occasionally, I thought this might be a decent shampoo to try out. Unfortunately it seemed to contribute to head acne (something I do not tolerate from a shampoo) and made my head itch more. Huh?! Regular, classic Head and Shoulders does neither of those things, plus it actually volumizes my hair a little bit. I don't mind the scent of this Dry Scalp Care, but I don't mind the scent of the regular H&S either. The final nail in the coffin is that my husband prefers the regular classic H&S, too, so we won't be buying this one again. We'll stick to the regular shampoo, which you can even buy at Costco in gigantic bottles that last forever.
Active ingredient: Pyrithione zinc, 1%
Inactive ingredients: water, sodium laureth sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, cocamide MEA, zinc carbonate, glycol distearate, dimethicone, fragrance, cetyl alcohol, polyquaternium-10, magnesium sulfate, sodium benzoate, magnesium carbonate hydroxide, ammonium laureth sulfate, benzyl alcohol, sodium chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, sodium xylenesulfonate, aloe barbadensis leaf, anthemis nobilis flower oil, tocopheryl acetate
Redken claims that "Clear Moisture Shampoo gently cleanses and provides lightweight moisture to normal to dry hair. Redken's exclusive Interbond Conditioning System delivers moisturizing apricot oil that combines with glucosamine and glycerin to form a unique Micro-Moisture Complex This ultra-light blend helps restore, rebalance, and retain the optimum level without over moisturizing. Hair is soft, shiny and airy." Redken touts apricot oil, which is 4th from the last ingredient, so there's not much present as far as I know. While I buy that glycerin could help topically, I'd think that taking a glucosamine pill would bring more benefit as opposed to putting it directly on your hair. I personally feel like Redken is just blowing a lot of smoke with the description of this shampoo. But that is probably also partially due to my experiences with it.
I finally stopped using this stuff after my husband said it looked like I had a rash on my neck. I could feel the bumps, and had him look, and he proclaimed it rash-y. Ugh. Not only did this stuff give me a rash, it also contributed to breakouts on my head (yes, ew!) and just did very little for my hair. It's supposed to be "light moisture for normal/dry hair," but apparently it wasn't enough moisturization for my slightly dry hair, but it was way too much for my more oily scalp. I don't think this shampoo cleaned my hair very well at all, which is a big part of the problem I have with it. Inexplicably, my hairdresser recommended this shampoo to me, and while it didn't strip out my highlights, it really did little to improve my hair.
I'm really torn about how to rate this. While it's clearly the wrong shampoo for me (despite it's description; it's way too moisturizing and not cleansing), it's also really mediocre on my hair. More mediocre than any other shampoo I can ever remember trying. It doesn't suck terribly, but it isn't good for my hair, either. It's just... blah, which irritates me a little. Why use a shampoo that seems to have little more benefit than using just plain water? It looks like some people like this shampoo, but as for me, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. There are better moisturizing shampoos out there (that clean better, too) and there are better cleansing shampoos out there that don't strip your hair. And they don't cost as much money as this shampoo, which I think I got at a discounted price between US$10 and $11 for 10.1 fl oz/300 ml.
Ingredients: water/aqua, sodium laureth sulfate, cocamidopropyl betane, dimethicone, disteryl ether, cocamide mipa, behenyl alcohol, sodium chloride, ppg-5-ceteth-20, glycerin, laureth-2, fragrance/parfum, polyquaternium-10, sodium methylparabe[n?], carbomer, dmdm hydantoin, hydroxypropyltrimoniu[m?], hydrolyzed wheat protein, glucosamine hci, glutami[c?] acid, oleth-10, disodium cocoamphodipropionate, lecithin, phosphoric acid, apricot kernel oil/prunus armeniaca, phenoxyethanol, methylparaben, ethylparaben (D6059/1) [Sorry for the partial ingredients sometimes- my bottle was missing some of the writing on one side.]