Skip to main content

Would I Repurchase? L'Oreal False Lash Telescopic

I'm a big fan of the Telescopic line.

L'Oreal mascaras - www.modenmakeup.com
posted on our Facebook page May 30, 2012

The 'comb' like brush is this range is great for defining every lash. It compliments the formula well because L'Oreal's wet mascaras could cause clumping. You can literally end up looking like you have spider legs coming out of your eyes.

L'Oreal False Lash Telescopic wand - www.modenmakeup.com
L'Oreal False Lash Telescopic packaging - www.modenmakeup.com

Strangely enough, I didn't see this particular mascara on the L'Oreal site but here's the description of the Original Telescopic: "Telescopic® Original Mascara enhances your lashes with intense length and unique lash by lash separation. The flat side of the patented flexible Precision Brush lengthens lashes up to 60%, while the comb side of the brush precisely separates lashes for a clump-free result. Fragrance-free. Ophthalmologist-tested and allergy-tested. Suitable for sensitive eyes and contact lens wearers".

False Lash supposedly has fibers in the formula but I don't see them. Like the Original Telescopic it lengthens and defines superbly. 'Magnetic Black' is very pigmented and I haven't experienced any flaking or smudging but with this wet formula you definitely want to coat your bottom lashes first. 

As good as it is, I would not repurchase. I got mine from Cave Shepherd for $32.99BDS DP. For that amount you could get two of the Maybelline Falsies Flared.

Popular posts from this blog

Sunday Riley Good Genes versus Drunk Elephant T.L.C Framboos Glycolic Night Serum

If you're an avid YouTube watcher you've probably heard about these products. Both brands blew up on the skincare seen in short order as expensive, but effective. If you're like me you quickly began to wonder: which is better? Short answer: it depends.


Long answer...

I've mentioned Good Genes a few times before on the blog. This 'all-in-one lactic acid treatment' is raved about by the likes of Stephanie Nicole and Caroline Hirons.

From the box: "Deeply exfoliates the dull surface of the skin for clarity, radiance, and younger-looking skin. Visibly brightens the appearance of age spots and discolorations. Instantly plumps the look of fine lines and wrinkles in 3 minutes*

*Clinically tested and proven to significantly improve the appearance of lines and wrinkles in 3 minutes. Results obtained via profilometry analysis.

With Key Ingredients:

Purified Lactic Acid: One of the most hydrating Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHAs), Lactic Acid exfoliates the surface layers of t…

It's A Dupe!

posted on our Facebook page April 12, 2013 "DUPE ALERT: M.A.C Mineralize Skinfinish Natural in Dark vs Maybelline Fit Me! in 355 Coconut. Both look the same applied to the face and are the same texture when swatched. The Mineralize Skinfinish Natural is bigger by 1 gram but the Fit Me! is significantly cheap... *ahem* more "inexpensive". There is one shade darker in the M.A.C version but 355 is the darkest shade in the Maybelline. (I'm NC50). If you go through a lot of face powder it's worth a shot - LR"
Talk about a throwback!
I watched a dupe video on YouTube recently where this comparison was mentioned and it reminded me that I had the same thought a while ago. The finish on the skin is identical. Since this original post M.A.C has changed the packaging on their Mineralize line and Maybelline has rebranded/re categorised the Fit Me! range into: Dewy/Set + Smooth and Matte + Poreless.
M.A.C says: "A slow-baked powder with 77-Mineral Complex that provid…