Skip to main content

making faces :: lusting after guerlain's gorgeous gardner

the look of love...
dear guerlain,

did something go awry with your logistics department? in the fall, you released this delicious deep berry lipstick called "gigolo", which might have been perfect for the season, but which also seems very holiday-appropriate. now i find out that you're releasing "gardner", a rich, warm red with a sumptuous, although subtle amber-gold shimmer drizzled through it like a touch of honey and i can't help thinking that it seems less in keeping with traditional ideas of holiday reds than your fall choice. was a mistake made? or are you simply playfully challenging the notions of seasonal shades? not that i care, because i love your rouge g lipsticks and as long as i think i can get away with the colour, i'm going to buy them and where them in whatever season i damn well please [because at that price, i'm getting my money's worth].
i have to say that "gardner" is a real winner. it has the creamy texture i've come to expect, the even coverage, the uniqueness that makes me fork over hard-earned money and optimum points to get them. although i didn't find this shade lasted quite as long on my lips as "gigolo", i'm not going to fault you for that, because that one was sort of exceptional. it stood up very well for several hours and, although the satiny sheen of first application faded [as it must], the colour retained its distinctive characteristics rather than becoming an ordinary orange-red stain.

about the shade's distinctiveness, i have to admit that it not only excites me as i try to come up with words to describe a shade i truly didn't have in my collection but thinking about it makes me hungry. i believe that's because the shade puts me in mind of autmnal foods- deep, vibrant roasted red peppers, smoky paprika, sundried tomatoes- i'm reminded of these far more than i am of other lipstick shades. i truly don't know how you do it, meaning come up with things that are just so difficult to match. and it's not that i don't have a lot of things to try matching it to. i thought that maybe your own shade "gipsy" was similar, but it's lighter and it's much more of a pumpkin orange with gold shimmer. lovely, but not at all the same. everything else seemed either much too brown [and there's really very little brown in "gardner" at all] or much too red.

MORE OF THIS LOVE LETTER AND MORE PICS AFTER THE BREAK



when i saw that both you and nars opted for a holiday palette featuring blues for the eyes and amber-tones for the lips, i was afraid they'd end up looking exactly the same, but that's not at all the case. while i might have given the edge to nars on the eyes, their holiday lipstick "joyous red" is much lighter and, ironically, less red than "gardner".

it's a little surprising to me just how much i love this shade, because i tend to favour cooler reds, but occasionally i just meet a warmed-up shade like this and i realise that life is too short to impose arbitrary limits on one's colour palette. 

although my bank account would like to beg you to stop with the wonderful colours, i know that i will never tire of seeing them or wearing them and every time i whip out one of your elborate rouge g cases, my lips and i feel sinfully spoiled. i am certain you will continue to confound and amaze me with each passing season, even if you introduce a black rouge g with your spring 2012 collection.

yours with love and beautifully coloured kisses,
kate

p.s. a few of my friends have suggested that i'd make a great lip model for guerlain. i'm game if you are.

p.p.s. i've heard that gardner is only available in europe, but we have it here in canada. i do notice that it's not available on sephora or neiman marcus or nordstrom and, most shocking, there's no mention of it on your web site. if it's true that this colour is only available in limited countries [you know, chanel usually lumps canada in with europe too, which is odd, but i'll take it] that's quite naughty of you, guerlain! because now i have to tell my american readers that if they want this, they'll have to find someone in europe or canada willing to get it for them. [excuse me while i cackle sadistically at the thought of all the things that the u.s. gets that i never even see.]

p.p.p.s. below are a few photos of a look i did for my first date with "gardner". we went for a walk. it was lovely.

"gardner"

the lips are naturally going to be the focus with a rich colour like that, but since it's not an overly dark colour, i was trying to use slightly warmer tones. strangely, i find that the camera didn't pick up the green around my eyes at all, although i assure, it was there. i do think that these photos are a really accurate representation of what "gardner" looks like. so, yes, this is what you're in for.

products used

face ::
mac prolongwear foundation "nc15"
lush colour supplement "jackie oates"

eyes ::
mac e/s "motif" [peachy gold with pink iridescence]
mac e/s "dazzlelight" [light neutral highlighter]
nars e/s "night porter" [blackened pine green]
chanel e/s "khaki vert" [frosted olive green with gold]
mac greasepaint stick "greengrease"* [greenish black]
mac superslick liquid liner "desires & devides" [dirty khaki green]
benefit they're real mascara

cheeks ::
mac highlight powder "marine life"* [pink-coral]

lips ::
guerlain rouge g l/s "gardner" [deep, warm red]

*suggested alternates :: greengrease = makeup forever aqua eyes pencil "20l"; marine life = nars deep throat

Comments

I LOVE it sooo much!!! PS..You have such flawless skin!
flora_mundi said…
This shade would be just devastating on you, for certain.

And thanks for the skin compliment. It's honestly dumb luck, because I've only started taking care of it properly in the last few years.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …