|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:12 am  |
As promised in the Alima News thread, here is my review of Alima #25, with comparison to my M.A.C 182.
Before any ado, Alima brush looks like so:
http://www.alimacosmetics.com/roi/661/Mineral-Cosmetics-Tools/Brushes/
M.A.C 182 looks like so: www.maccosmetics.com/images/products/M661_128.jpg
Material:
Alima - entirely synthetic, great for those who do not use animal fur.
MAC - made from sable I believe but the company's poliy is to be free from animal cruelty in the way they make brushes. So that eases my conscience abit.
Quality: The most important bit obviously 
Alima - It arrived very well packaged for shipping. I washed the brush before use and there was no bleeding of the dye nor shedding of the brush. The shape of the brush is nicely proportioned and the only thing to nit pick is the noon-uniformity in the cut of the top. It wasn't exactly flat but then I am guessing perfection of shape is not necessary when actually using the brush. But I like my brushes to look perfect  .
MAC - Came in a flimsy platic tube. Hahah no comment there. It washed well, becoming fluffier after wash but I just stuck it back into the tube once it dryed to reshape it. There was some shedding, but very minor. It didn't even hurt to see it shed, despite the high high price of this brush. The shape of the brush is cut better than Alima's but yes, NOT perfect. 
Softness:
Alima - The sides of the brush, not soft. It definitely has a synthetic feel to it. However the top itself is quite soft, better than most natural hair kabukis.
MAC - Soft all the way around. I think it is just as soft as Alima's, maybe even a little softer because the fibres are longer, allowing greater pliability in the brush itself.
Usage/Performance:
I am going to say that these two brushes really should not be compared directly because they have different functions.
Go and have a look at the shape of the brushes. Alima's is dense, short and flat topped. M.A.C's is roundish, longer haired and fluffy (so fluffy and cute!). Alima's brush is actually really suitable for applying mineral makeup, nearly fitting the top of the sample pots. The firmness of the brush help to layer the powder on and I think it creates less powder flying into the air. The MAC however is great for gently buffing everything smoothly, or fluffing powder on (which you might want to do). I also think it i more suited to applying translucent or mattifying powders.
In summary, compare Alima #25 to Jane Iredale's Buffer brush or Smash Box's one, but not to Lumiere or U Glo Girl or M.A.Cs. They have different shapes and different functions in my opinion, and I love my Alima and M.A.C equally.
For more reviews, check out this thread. |
_________________
Mid-20s Asian female (since I am not mature enough to be called a woman ). Skin is combination with tendency to dryness around the cheeks and prone to blemishes. Naturally coarse black hair  . Lastly but most importantly, you need something purchased in Australia I will be happy to CP  :. |
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 16, 2024 6:22 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
|
