Skip to main content

making faces :: one more bite won't kill me

i've always imagined that "one more bite won't kill me" will actually be my last words [or, alternately "what does this button do?"], but i hadn't until recently thought that the direct cause would be lipstick-related. now, when i look at the extent of my collection, i'm forced to acknowledge that there is a very good chance that i'll be unable to resist a new bite beauty amuse bouche and get crushed in a very colourful avalanche as i am trying to put everything away. i don't know how much time i've got left, but given the strength of my addiction and the limitations of space, things are likely to get dangerous soon. and yet, here i am, about to tell you about the next new shade of bite lipstick i brought home.

it wasn't that long ago that my principal issue with bite [and it wasn't a big issue, given the quality of their products] was that their shade range, while broad, tended to be the sorts of shades that lots of other brands had already. their new amuse bouche lipsticks showed some increased signs of originality, but their six-shade "sweet and savoury" collection for summer just smashed right through the wall. ok, not every shade is 100% original [deep brown "whiskey" seems like the sort of thing i've seen before, although i couldn't swear that there's an exact duplicate out there], but it's pretty damn close. having already succumbed to the allure of "kale" and "lavender jam", i couldn't resist going back for seconds.

taro
taro
"taro" is a very greyed purple, definitely muted in tone, but dark enough to give a bit of drama as well. intense and muted? that combination seems like it should be impossible, but clearly, it isn't. it's all about the darkness here: depth is what gives the colour both its intensity and its uniqueness. most muted purple tones are softer looking because they are lighter. and for that matter, most of them are pinker. one of the only permanent shades i have that dabbles in this range is mac's "up the amp", but it just looks like a medium sweetheart pink compared to "taro".

l to r :: taro, mac up the amp
with bright blues and swampy greens and even shades of yellow marching into lipstick collections everywhere this year, a shade of purple doesn't seem all that dramatic, but this is a bold choice for a colour. truly cool, muted tones are incredibly rare. when i did my series on lipsticks to suit all the sci\art seasons, true summer ended up with tamped down shades of cool pink and fuchsia. "taro" is something that's meant for a true summer complexion, especially for those who have darker hair.

in theory, that makes it a very difficult colour for me, since, as a bright [probably] winter, clarity of colour is the most important thing to bring out the best in my complexion. and, as much as i enjoy exploring and am impressed with the results of seasonal colour analysis, i have to say that i'm willing to take the risk for such a unique shade. i adore purples. i have nothing like it. it's saturated enough that it doesn't look insipid on me. i'll accept a less than ideal colour match for a colour this enchanting.

here it is in action...




i wish i could say with certainty what the shades i'm wearing are, but i failed to make proper notes. i reasonably certain it's an assortment of rouge bunny rouge, alongside nars "lhasa" and i'm reasonably sure that the blush is nars "sin", topped with colour pop "stole the show".

since the last review i posted, i notice that the sephora website [sephora being the exclusive distributor for bite beauty] has listed "taro" and "lavender jam" as limited edition, while the other shades from the sweet and savoury summer collection appear to be joining the permanent assortment. so, if you want to prioritize shades, put purple first.

"taro" once again showcases bite at their best. it's getting difficult for me to even look at other brands and let me tell you, that is shocking. and believe me, if i can find unique gems in their collection, healthy, non-addicted folk should have no problem. 

Comments

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 …