Colorstay 24hrs Makeup SPF 20 Normal/Dry Skin (US pump bottle)

13 Reviews

1. 

   solidTacos7

   Reply

   *** Product bought with my own money ***

   Application method : sponge

   This is a review of the two formulas of Colorstay foundations in the shade 150 Buff. In my review C/O means “combination/oily skin formula” and N/D “normal/dry skin formula”.

   PROS :
   – C/O thick texture that glides easily on skin (when spread with a brush),
   – C/O and N/D mostly stays true-to-tone,
   – C/O and N/D long-lasting (except for the creasing).

   CONS :
   – N/D runny, almost oily, consistency that’s easy to spread but drips everywhere (when you pick up the product with a finger to dot it onto the face),
   – C/O cakey finish (with a brush, smoother-but-sheerer finish with a sponge),
   – N/D powdery/chalky/dry-looking finish (whatever the application method is, sheerer with a sponge) that emphasizes flakiness and dry patches (which is not what dry skins need),
   – N/D badly blended pigments and non-stabilized formula,
   – C/O never truly sets, it remains tacky and waxy on the skin (even after powdering), and tranfers onto everything (including the bristles of the brush that’s used to powdering, coating every single hair with foundation),
   – C/O and N/D crease and settle into fine/expression lines IMMEDIATELY after application, and continue to do so over time (even when heavily set with powder) which make your skin appear older… WTF !!!
   – C/O medium coverage,
   – N/D sheer-to-light coverage,
   – non-calibrated shades (from C/O to N/D),
   – C/O and N/D the pigments tend to redden when they set (not really a bad thing, it just means that the shade in the bottle and wet swatches are definitely not reliable),
   – C/O and N/D fragranced.

   COMMENTS :
   I’ve been using Colorstay for 15 years (I began with the SoftFlex formulas).

   I have very oily skin but I can wear indifferently both formulas. Honestly, calling one for oily skin and the other one for dry skin is a nonsense as the latter is not moisturizing in the least, in my opinion these are just twice the same product with only a few tweaks in the formulas to produce slighty different finishes and coverage levels. The N/D has much lower coverage and contains tiny shimmers in N/D (which are invisible at first but become visible after a while) that add a slight glow which would be pretty if the finish was not so powdery/chalky/dry-looking.

   The shades are not calibrated from C/O to N/D : as an example, Buff in C/O tends to be more yellow and one shade lighter than Buff in N/D.

   Both formulas take a very long time to set (which explains why they crease straight after application). I need to heavily set with powder IMMEDIATELY after smoothing a “problematic” area (smile lines, undereye area). Once “mostly” set, they last a very long time (but still crease over time).

   The shine control is just average and, as strange as it sounds, is better with N/D because of its powdery finish. The former Colorstay Softflex for oily skin was more absorbent and had a much better shine control.

   A major problem with N/D is it’s not fully blended : I get lots of white grains of unblended pigments on my face. In addition, the formula is not stabilized : the pigments deposit onto the inner surface of the bottle over time, giving the illusion it is always full, there is less pigment suspended in the foundation base, thus resulting in the shade becoming darker/sheerer.

   Although the word “fragrance” do not appear in the ingredient lists, both formulas are fragranced : orchid extract and ethylene brassylate (the latter is mostly responsible of the final smell). While ethylene brassylate gives a gorgeous warm, comforting distinct smell, neither flowery nor sugary (it’s found in almost every foundation from Revlon, Covergirl, and many other so-called “fragrance-free” foundations) it does not have any other purpose than perfuming. Fortunately, this fragrance ingredient neither irritate my skin or my eyes, but it’s something to note for the most sensitive skins/eyes amongst us.

   I used to like the current formulas when the SoftFlex ones were discontinued, but everything is relative : now my skin is older, I now have the habit of checking my makeup in a 8x magnifying mirror (this is not forgiving in the least, trust me) and so many oustanding foundations have popped up in a decade that, in comparison, both current Colorstay formulas are now antiquated and under-performing. Both SoftFlex formulas had a better lasting-power (without creasing), thus were better formulations.

   And finally, a comment on the marketing team. Recently, new shades were launched (which brings the total to 43 for the oily skin formula and 24 for the dry skin one). While such a shade selection is absolutely stunning, the marketing team made it a complete mess.

   The pattern in the shades range has always been the same : the smaller the number the lighter the shade, the bigger the number the darker the shade. But with the new shades launch, this pattern is not reliable anymore. I tried the shades 135 Vanilla and 140 Oatmeal, thinking they would be at least as pale as 150 Buff, maybe with some slight changes in the undertone, but it turns out that they are at least 2 shades darker. Also, the swatches online are completely useless : many shades appear much lighter online than they actually are, or look completely weird (I’ve seen a shade that’s a grayish purple). I even tried 295 Dune which was shown lighter than Buff on one of Revlon’s online leaflets (this one too runs out 2 to 3 shades darker than shown).

   Here is the Revlon’s leaflet

   Who is responsible for such a chaotic numbering system and non-accurate digitalized swatches ? Was (s)he drunk ? Isn’t there a quality control in this marketing team ?

   Nothing is better than arms swatches (dry ones, not wet ones which don’t have any sense as most foundations darken upon drying/setting, especially Revlon’s pigments that also tend to redden), but it obviously requires more work than Revlon is ready to do.

   I just wish things were done right.

2. 

   spiritedCheetah0

   Reply

   Since the reformulation it sucks , the extra income generated by a multistate takeover of income comes from payments from white exporters, especially those that are primarily accounted for by those nation states. So, again, it’s a laggard. Income to white exporters is certainly less than 12% of GDP, but that’s not very negative news to us, as much as it’s concerning to American blue-collar workers. And so when gold arrives, white exporters will open with hundreds of thousands of tons of worthless silver and gold by then. I have no idea how far this white-republicanization has been taking, but I suspect they’ve probably cracked some payments for all their unfunded liability and have dodged more than they have saved. Given that other value-added gains in the country from white exporters aren’t as widespread as people would like, I’m glad to see more white exporters come out of the blue. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of everything we do on a given day, there are about 82% more white men than there are white women. Until whites are disproportionately affected by the loss of economic opportunity, we need to stop relying on red nations as our economic drivers.

   But how many whites can’t die before an expensive place to live collapses?

   The number of white housekeepers is about 12%, many of them temporary employees or professionals. Approximately half the property in America today is owned by couples with full-time families, according to the National Association of Realtors. And that seems like a pretty big number, but we should certainly expect to see similar growth in older white people and in lower-wage whites. Since 1979, 29 out of 50 white kids have married white women. This combination suggests that white people will continue to face the highest level of economic vulnerability in the United States, which reflects a lot of blacks’ financial hardships and and primarily white failure in military service.

   This study focuses not just on one individual issue, which was seen by Social Security when the idea of nannying people meant only delaying and shrinking their benefits in 1935 and 1938. If I say I hate the Social Security system and like red Americans, you’d have to assume there’s more to this than that. Still, there are some truths to believe, especially as the numbers of deaths from natural causes, using the department of veterans affairs and health care programs to provide health insurance to Americans, are ridiculous. The harm to health care costs that the

3. 

   alertSnail6

   Reply

   I hate to be so crude but this foundation is so not worth its money. First for a product for explicitly made for dry skin it is way to powdery. If I have to mix a foundation with a big load of moisturiser to keep it from cracking then we do have a problem. Second: it needs a lot of powder to make it stay in place. It sticks to my blush brush or beauty blender. Just annoying. Third: it aims for a 24 h stay – it just won’t. Not if you have to blow your nose, have someone slightly touch you or have a butterfly kiss your cheek.

4. 

   pluckyPiglet2

   Reply

   *** Product bought with my own money ***

   Application method : sponge

   This is a review of the two formulas of Colorstay foundations in the shade 150 Buff. In my review C/O means “combination/oily skin formula” and N/D “normal/dry skin formula”.

   PROS :
   – C/O thick texture that glides easily on skin (when spread with a brush),
   – C/O and N/D mostly stays true-to-tone,
   – C/O and N/D long-lasting (except for the creasing).

   CONS :
   – N/D runny, almost oily, consistency that’s easy to spread but drips everywhere (when you pick up the product with a finger to dot it onto the face),
   – C/O cakey finish (with a brush, smoother-but-sheerer finish with a sponge),
   – N/D powdery/chalky/dry-looking finish (whatever the application method is, sheerer with a sponge) that emphasizes flakiness and dry patches (which is not what dry skins need),
   – N/D badly blended pigments and non-stabilized formula,
   – C/O never truly sets, it remains tacky and waxy on the skin (even after powdering), and tranfers onto everything (including the bristles of the brush that’s used to powdering, coating every single hair with foundation),
   – C/O and N/D crease and settle into fine/expression lines IMMEDIATELY after application, and continue to do so over time (even when heavily set with powder) which make your skin appear older… WTF !!!
   – C/O medium coverage,
   – N/D sheer-to-light coverage,
   – non-calibrated shades (from C/O to N/D),
   – C/O and N/D the pigments tend to redden when they set (not really a bad thing, it just means that the shade in the bottle and wet swatches are definitely not reliable),
   – C/O and N/D fragranced.

   COMMENTS :
   I’ve been using Colorstay for 15 years (I began with the SoftFlex formulas).

   I have very oily skin but I can wear indifferently both formulas. Honestly, calling one for oily skin and the other one for dry skin is a nonsense as the latter is not moisturizing in the least, in my opinion these are just twice the same product with only a few tweaks in the formulas to produce slighty different finishes and coverage levels. The N/D has much lower coverage and contains tiny shimmers in N/D (which are invisible at first but become visible after a while) that add a slight glow which would be pretty if the finish was not so powdery/chalky/dry-looking.

   The shades are not calibrated from C/O to N/D : as an example, Buff in C/O tends to be more yellow and one shade lighter than Buff in N/D.

   Both formulas take a very long time to set (which explains why they crease straight after application). I need to heavily set with powder IMMEDIATELY after smoothing a “problematic” area (smile lines, undereye area). Once “mostly” set, they last a very long time (but still crease over time).

   The shine control is just average and, as strange as it sounds, is better with N/D because of its powdery finish. The former Colorstay Softflex for oily skin was more absorbent and had a much better shine control.

   A major problem with N/D is it’s not fully blended : I get lots of white grains of unblended pigments on my face. In addition, the formula is not stabilized : the pigments deposit onto the inner surface of the bottle over time, giving the illusion it is always full, there is less pigment suspended in the foundation base, thus resulting in the shade becoming darker/sheerer.

   Although the word “fragrance” do not appear in the ingredient lists, both formulas are fragranced : orchid extract and ethylene brassylate (the latter is mostly responsible of the final smell). While ethylene brassylate gives a gorgeous warm, comforting distinct smell, neither flowery nor sugary (it’s found in almost every foundation from Revlon, Covergirl, and many other so-called “fragrance-free” foundations) it does not have any other purpose than perfuming. Fortunately, this fragrance ingredient neither irritate my skin or my eyes, but it’s something to note for the most sensitive skins/eyes amongst us.

   I used to like the current formulas when the SoftFlex ones were discontinued, but everything is relative : now my skin is older, I now have the habit of checking my makeup in a 8x magnifying mirror (this is not forgiving in the least, trust me) and so many oustanding foundations have popped up in a decade that, in comparison, both current Colorstay formulas are now antiquated and under-performing. Both SoftFlex formulas had a better lasting-power (without creasing), thus were better formulations.

   And finally, a comment on the marketing team. Recently, new shades were launched (which brings the total to 43 for the oily skin formula and 24 for the dry skin one). While such a shade selection is absolutely stunning, the marketing team made it a complete mess.

   The pattern in the shades range has always been the same : the smaller the number the lighter the shade, the bigger the number the darker the shade. But with the new shades launch, this pattern is not reliable anymore. I tried the shades 135 Vanilla and 140 Oatmeal, thinking they would be at least as pale as 150 Buff, maybe with some slight changes in the undertone, but it turns out that they are at least 2 shades darker. Also, the swatches online are completely useless : many shades appear much lighter online than they actually are, or look completely weird (I’ve seen a shade that’s a grayish purple). I even tried 295 Dune which was shown lighter than Buff on one of Revlon’s online leaflets (this one too runs out 2 to 3 shades darker than shown).

   Here is the Revlon’s leaflet

   Who is responsible for such a chaotic numbering system and non-accurate digitalized swatches ? Was (s)he drunk ? Isn’t there a quality control in this marketing team ?

   Nothing is better than arms swatches (dry ones, not wet ones which don’t have any sense as most foundations darken upon drying/setting, especially Revlon’s pigments that also tend to redden), but it obviously requires more work than Revlon is ready to do.

   I just wish things were done right.

5. 

   exactingMare2

   Reply

   Since the reformulation it sucks

6. 

   ashamedCow7

   Reply

   I hate to be so crude but this foundation is so not worth its money. First for a product for explicitly made for dry skin it is way to powdery. If I have to mix a foundation with a big load of moisturiser to keep it from cracking then we do have a problem. Second: it needs a lot of powder to make it stay in place. It sticks to my blush brush or beauty blender. Just annoying. Third: it aims for a 24 h stay – it just won’t. Not if you have to blow your nose, have someone slightly touch you or have a butterfly kiss your cheek.

7. 

   decimalBustard4

   Reply

   i am really on the fence for this foundation. my skin is normal i would say, with some dry patches on my unibrow down to the nose area. this foundation runs at $15CAD at walmart, so it’s pretty pricey for a drugstore foundation. packaging is nice as it comes with a pump and the bottle seems pretty durable, and with the amount i find that i can get by with half a pump (having a full pump is too much and goes to waste) i have warm-toned asian skin and i use 150 buff. it looks yellow in the packaging and on the first application but it tends to run more neutral/pink later in the day. i wish it had more shades for more undertones because buff is the only shade i can use that matches the rest of my body, but even then i don’t look as natural. my parents and my boyfriend even said i looked too pale! i definitely need at the very least blush if i use this foundation. there is also a great amount flashback, but i guess since it has spf it’s to be expected. for it being a foundation for dry skin, the formula is pretty thick and matte on first application and it does seem to cling on my slightly dry patches but looks okay after it sets, so i’m not sure if this really does work for the drier skinned people. also with blending, you have to do it quick (i use a sponge). not sure if its longevity is good as i always pair with loose powder and/or setting spray, and it seems to stay on with those two but tends to get oily around my t-zone later on the day, which has always been a problem for me.

   FINAL COMMENTS: if you have VERY normal skin and have money to spare for a summer foundation, then buy this. but i do feel like there are better foundations with better shade range for lower prices than this. if i can’t find another foundation, then i guess i will have to settle for this, but i don’t think it’s that special or worth its price.

8. 

   puzzledMeerkat1

   Reply

   This has really unbelievable coverage but that’s as far as my praise goes.

   It’s really really dry for a foundation for normal/dry skin. Like it dries to a powder finish and makes any dryness pretty noticeable. It also exacerbates dryness and sucks moisture from the skin, even though I have normal-dry skin. I also find the shades run very gray even for my neutral skin tone. I definitely have to bronze after applying of I will look sick or dead.

   I usually mix foundations so i find this isn’t useless for me. i use it to add staying power, coverage and lightness to other foundations. This is great for mixing with very dewy foundations (pro-glow) to make them set down better/last longer and low-coverage foundations (naked skin or marcelle flawless) to amp up the coverage.

9. 

   cruelApples0

   Reply

   By far the worst foundation that I have ever put on my face! This foundation sucked all of the moisture right out of my skin (and eyes) and made my face feel tight and dry. Looked dry, too! All of my fine lines were on display and magnified. At lunch during work I ran to Sephora in order to remove this horrible product from my face and to apply a deeply hydrating moisturizer. Awful, extremely bad. Never again, stay away from this skin destroyer!

10. 

    euphoricPoultry7

    Reply

    This has gotta be the most horrible foundation I’ve ever put on my face. It’s like putting on layers of cement on my face! I’ve also tried the combination/oily formula & both perform equally. I find their shades run more pink than anything else too.

11. 

    scornfulBoars2

    Reply

    This foundation has buildable coverage, has medium coverage and does last for a long time without a lot of transfer. However, it-
    accentuated my dry areas
    rubbed off on clothes
    accentuated my pores
    dries quickly and does not blend well
    is too matte for mature skin (and my taste)

12. 

    wakefulJerky8

    Reply

    This product was terrible. Felt extremely heavy on my face but provided what seemed like minimal coverage as you could plainly see all blemishes as if I had nothing on. After about 30 minutes of wearing it was already flaking off. Horrible purchase

13. 

    selfishDunbird1

    Reply

    Not sure why this is marketed for dry skin. Goes on like shelaq and clings to every dry spot. Terrible.