Coverage? LOLZ!!!! (Rimmel Lasting Finish Minerals Loose Powder Foundation)

Member Name: liss_e

Product:	Rimmel Lasting Finish Minerals Loose Powder Foundation
Date:	21/07/09 (153 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: The price isn't bad, it doesn't contain talc

Disadvantages: Pointless brush, no coverage, poor shades, makes skin look terrible!

After deciding I wanted to try out a Mineral foundation and finding the first one I tried to be too drying although it had great coverage, my already dry skin just suffered from the talc it contained, I was still on the hunt for a more suitable mineral foundation.

This Rimmel one costs around £7 full price, but I found it on the market for £2.99 so snapped it up and couldn't wait to try it out. There are five shades available, and it comes in a loose powder form in a jar container with a sifter that you tip upside down and tap before unscrewing the lid to, to get some of the powder out. You then take the brush it's supplied with and swirl it into the powder, tapping off the excess before buffing into your skin in circular motions.



Using The Foundation:

The mini kabuki brush that comes with it looks adorable, a funky silver base with the new logo of a purple crown on it. However it is useless, the size wouldn't matter much as it means you can get to all those awkward places like alongside the hairline and around the nose with the smaller brush, but the bristles are HORRID! Stiff, and uncomfortable to use, it barely applies any of the product whatsoever.

I chose the shade 'Soft Beige' as it was the next shade up from the lightest, 'Ivory', because I have a bit of a tan and I found the Ivory was too light for me. However I got that awful orange face you get when foundation is just too dark for you, so instantly I cursed the lack of decent shades.

I ended up using a brush I already owned on the second and subsequent times I tried to use this foundation. It worked a lot better but the coverage still left an awful lot to be desired, it wasn't patchy, but it was very light and I require a medium coverage from my foundations at least.

Length of time it lasts before you can notice that it's slowly rubbed off or is fading I have no idea on, seeing as other than tinting my face a night orange colour, the coverage was so bad that it didn't cover a thing from the beginning. However it disappeared from my nose and forehead about three hours later, and my t-zone is really not the greasiest one seeing as my skin type is dry! This foundation really does make me look like I have terrible pores (I don't, they're usually pretty good), and makes my skin look greasy, not dewy or glowing, but greasy.


My Final Opinion:

A complete waste of money for me, this was worse than the Revlon one that I tried - at least that gave a fab coverage and didn't make my face look greasy! The brush is a waste of time, and should just be left out rather than included to make the price seem like more of a bargain.

I really did hope it'd be better than this, I wasn't expecting perfection, just some coverage but it didn't even give me that whilst making my skin look awful, much worse than it is without make-up. Lately, Rimmel has done nothing but disapoint me, and I don't think even Sophie Ellis-Bextor herself could persuade me to try out any more of their products.

It doesn't even deserve one star, but I guess at least it doesn't contain talv which makes my skin dry and makes it look patchy.

And so my search for a decently priced mineral foundation continues. With two failed attempts I am beginning to wonder if I'll find it...

Summary: The worst foundation I've ever used