Saturday, 9 October 2010

Review: MAC Pro Longwear Concealer

This week has been an excellent week to review a concealer; my usually amenable skin is suffering from a series of glitches, technical errors and Error 404: Page Not Found. In other words, I'm currently suffocating in the midst of a nasty acne outbreak and it hurts to move my chin.

So yes, this week, in essence, is the perfect time to review a concealer and to test it to its limits. The concealer in question is MAC's latest offering: the Pro Longwear concealer, littlest sister to the foundation of the name name. Same name, same claim, same... performance? Well, we'll see...

Image borrowed from Google - I forgot to take my own!

THE PACKAGING is the most disappointing aspect of this whole product and I keep trying to rationalise MAC's use of it until I'm blue in the face; it's quite possibly the most ill-advised packaging I've ever had to use. Using it on a day-by-day basis is a constant frustration - I very rarely get just the right amount and end up distributing the rest pointlessly over my other less pockmarked areas of my face. I saw a comment on a blog regarding this problem: simply pump it into a sample jar and save the unused amount for later. It's a practical suggestion, but I still feel bitchy about it - why, indeed, should I have to resort to such measures because of MAC's failing? At this high-end price, I feel justifiably miffed.

THE TEXTURE is fairly liquid but it has a soft, creamy feel. It certainly doesn't have the sticky feel of its matching foundation. It sets as quickly as its counterpart product, however, so swift blending is an absolute must and the prospects of building this up are slim: it cakes, and cakes badly if you don't move quickly.

COVERAGE is good and pigmented for under-eye circles, but mine aren't usually too prominent. I am satisfied with the coverage, however, but others with more prominent under-eye circles may not. On blemishes, I have to admit, I'm not sold. Although this is not marketed as an all-purpose concealer, I was curious to see its performance in other areas. I'll be blunt: it was poor. It was too liquid to conceal effectively and it caked upon subsequent layers - and then to add insult to injury, it oxidised. It just wasn't working on that front - but I can't judge it too harshly; it's definitely not its true calling.

500 B.C. (Before Concealer).


500 A.D. (After Disguisement).

Although at first, I applied this with a fluffy brush, I encountered two problems. The first was that the concealer was setting before I could blend it as I pleased around the eye area, and the second was that I could barely cleanse it from the brush without resorting to oil to break down the product. As it stands now, I prefer to blend this using my fingers, as their warmth gives me the tiniest extra snippet of time with which I can blend it perfectly before it sets for the next 15 hours.

THE FINISH matches that of the foundation - it's a matte finish without being too dry or mask-like. For oily skins, this type of finish is going to work well, but for those who have drier skins, this will grab to drier areas unless you have an excellent eye cream at your disposal.

WEAR, however, is where this concealer does at least fulfil its briefs: it wears for the promised 15 hour period without budging or creasing, and even in hotter, sweatier climes like the infinite delights of the cavernous London tube. It's such a shame, really, that this is one of the only positive notes in a miserable mire of negatives and tactical errors.

So, where does that leave us? I'm disappointed. Although it delivers on its claims of 15 hour wear and covers my under-eye circles effectively, the terrible choice in packaging and one-trick pony nature which cannot deal with a simple blemish leaves me cold. Why why why isn't it as good as its foundation of the same namesake? Oh, MAC, you could have done so much better with this. I'll use it up, but I'm not convinced - I'm betting Estée Lauder's Double Wear is going to be a vast improvement.

6 comments:

  1. Loving your writing style, as always :) xxx

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got a sample of this and agree that it covers well, however yes the packaging is a bummer... the ma pumped out a ton into the little container for me so that was great...but in terms of using it if I do buy the bottle, you get too much when you pump... so great idea to have a pump, bad execution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. this does not sound very good :( I wish it would have been better. I only like Mac's Select Cover up and am yet to find another decent concealer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Rocaille aww, what a lovely comment :) xxx

    @Justine Exactly! Terrible execution which will sadly guarantee I will look elsewhere for a concealer next time :(

    @Get Gawjus! Seriously, don't waste your time... It's hard enough finding a decent concealer without MAC making a passable one in awful packaging - why can't anyone get it right?!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh no I was hoping it would be good - the before and after photos looked so promising!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Desiree Sadly not :( I was so disappointed - I mean, it works for me but I don't think it will for those with darker circles - not to mention it cakes and is annoying to blend :(

    ReplyDelete

I respond to all of your lovely comments, so be sure to check back or subscribe to email follow-ups, particularly if you've asked me a question!

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails