Sunday, November 4, 2012

Chanel Star Dust #73 Powder Blush - Holiday 2012


Chanel's new blush for the holiday is Star Dust #73 ($43 for 6g/0.21 oz). I found this blush to be more of a glimmering highlighter rather than a regular blush. It has a sheer soft pink base loaded with tiny micro sparkles in shades of pink, silver and platinum. It's quite stunning in the compact. In testing this, I found that I need some kind of a cream highlighter or blush on the cheeks to make this show up (I experimented with NARS Luxor, a few other NARS Multiples, Edward Bess Sunlight and a couple Armani fluid sheers). Alone over foundation and powder (like a regular blush) resulted in a barely noticeable powdery pink cheek. When layered over a cream product, it goes on a soft pink loaded with sparkles. The effect is similar MAC Silver Dusk or Laura Mercier's Star Dust powder but even more sparkly with a pink base (versus silvery/champagne). Overall the name Star Dust fits the product performance - it gives a sparkle effect to the cheeks. I can only see myself wearing this for evenings out - for me it's too sparkly for everyday wear.



Close up:


Swatched you can see it's very sheer. Even with heavy layering, it's a soft warm sheer pink:


Star Dust is a warmer pink when compared to other soft pink shades, but it's still clearly pink (not a peachy pink). I pulled a few comparisons to show, I couldn't find a dupe in my Chanel or MAC collection. Here are a few views to show the shimmer and undertones. First in direct sunlight: Chanel Ombres Tissees in Beiges (limited-edition from August 2011), Chanel Winter Shimmer (discontinued), MAC Porcelain Pink MSF, NARS Miss Liberty, Le Metier de Beaute Whisper:


Comparisons under artificial light (same set of colors):

Swatches, two views:



I'm not completely in love with Star Dust mainly because it didn't apply on the face like I expected it to. Based on what I saw in the compact and what I'm used to for Chanel blushes, I expected something more pigmented and not as sheer. I'm usually a die-hard Chanel blush fan but this one was just ok for me - the lightness of the color can look a bit chalky for my skintone and emphasize pores if not applied with a super light hand. Still, as a highlighter it's very pretty and nice for evenings to add that extra sparkle. It's unique enough compared to other highlighters in the sense that the shimmer/sparkle isn't your standard silver or champagne. It's subtle but makes the skin have a really pretty glow as long as you have a dewy base first.

Did you try Star Dust? What were your thoughts? If you're interested in this I suggest you check your counters soon to try it. Three counters near me were already sold out - although I think it will be easy to find online for a while.

22 comments:

  1. The colour and the shimmer are awesome, love it! ♥
    xx

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're right, looks amazing in the pan!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Despite being sheer, Star Dust does look quite pretty when swatched and I like the idea of a pink highlight. It seems that across brands whenever 'star' is tacked on a name we should expect sheerness and glitter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Awful glitter bomb - took one swipe on my finger, and knew it was not for me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for the great comparison pictures. I have Winter Shimmer from a while back and thought I don't need Star Dust - what do you think - do I need both? I did buy the holiday duo based on your description and did a smokey eye last night.
    Best,
    Tanja

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the review. I don't like sheer blush either -- too light. Nice color though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really like the sheer glimmer for the holidays!

    Aimee

    www.allaboutthejoy.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love that color!

    Vittoria
    http://vittoriafiveinthemorning.blogspot.it/

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love the shimmer but it is also too sheer for my skintone most of the year. I think it looks good paired with smoky eyes and dark berry lips though! :D

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is just gorgeous against your tone! I didn't puchase it because it's way too light for me. I rarely reach for a highlighter as it is... one of the few products I only own one of lol

    ReplyDelete
  11. I put this over The Perfect Cheek by MAC from the Marilyn collection and I just love it - Perfect Cheek is matte and this changes the whole look. I actually wear it to work - and i think it looks fabulous

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. First we had the re-promote of Rose Écrin (delicate pink), then the debut of Star Dust (sparkly, delicate pink). It's pretty obvious to any Chanel lover that Peter Philips has been gradually moving away from saturated cheek colors lately. He actually sent Chanel's models down the Spring 2013 runway without any blush at all! Personally, I like the shift to a more delicate cheek after so many seasons of rich, saturated color. It's a refreshing change. On my warm, fair complexion, Star Dust actually provides sufficient color when worn on its own. I haven't tried layering it yet, but I imagine it would make a festive highlighter when used in conjunction with a more vibrant blusher. As for the glitter factor, it's quite fine but certainly won't appeal to glitter-phobes and probably wouldn't work in a conservative office environment. But, Star Dust is for the holidays. It's meant to sparkle and shine and that it does equisitely.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Sabrina,
    First thing first, your pictures are amazing! It captures the difference between shimmer, sparkle, and all the nuances, making it worthwhile coming to your blog again and again. Now to the meat: I did try Star Dust last weekend and I found it too sparkly for my taste to use daily, too. The MA actually used it as a blender shadow on the socket and up to the brow bone to add some sparkle, it actually works that way. I'm sensing a new "trend" from Chanel: blush as eye shadow. First Notorious, then Star Dust? Anyhow, nice post as always.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Milktea said... Dang! I was hoping it would show up as a muted or soft peach-pink like it does in the pan. Oh, well...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Sabrina, I agree with Claire. Your pictures are beautiful. I have medium skin with an olive tone. I tried the Star Dust. Sadly, it looked too pink and shimmery on me. Maybe it is better on fair to light skin or anyone with less yellow undertones. Great post! Thank you for sharing...
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I absolutely love most Chanel blushes, but not this one. At first I thought all the glitter was overspray. But when I rubbed the surface to get it off, it was still just a glitter bomb. I am a NC15 and I got no color out of it. Huge disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Too glittery for me as well. :(

    ReplyDelete
  19. hi Sabrina, I've tested this out yesterday and today. Can't find myself using it on my face. WIll give it a pass. However, i found another love. The chanel "poudre lumiere nacree". It is soooo beautiful and unique for me. A very flattering peachy highlighter. Chanel does it right again. Have you check it out? This is the perfect treat to end 2012 for me.
    Lily

    ReplyDelete
  20. I love this blush it gives such a beautiful glow to my face! And the smell is great!

    ReplyDelete
  21. It looks pretty, but sometimes lighter pinks do not show up very well on my skin. Will have to try it in person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What a pity, in the pan it's the perfect dusky pink but I could never apply such a shimmer bomb to my cheeks.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for stopping by! Comment moderation is enabled to filter out spam. Any comments with links to blogs, advertising, giveaways etc. will not be published.

 

design + development by fabulous k | COPYRIGHT © 2009-2014 THE BEAUTY LOOK BOOK