Today, I didn't really want to wear any specific polish, plus I wasn't going anywhere, so I decided to re-swatch Illamasqua Phallic, because I was really dissatisfied with the pictures that were already there. I'd been curious about how it compared to RBL Under the Stars, plus the Varnish Vixen asked about them a little bit ago, so I grabbed my bottle and did a quick comparison.
When I was making up my RBL list, I was on the fence about Under the Stars. I already owned Phallic, and when I checked swatches side by side, they looked pretty much the same. But thankfully, that's definitely not the case, as these polishes look absolutely nothing alike. I think the pictures make them look a bit more similar, but in person, even Stevie Wonder would be able to tell them apart. Under the Stars' base color is dustier, greener, and much closer to teal than Phallic's vibrant, jewel-toned, navy. And Phallic's shimmer is larger, lighter, and far more visible than Under the Stars', especially under lower lighting conditions.
So yes...someone would be justified in owning both. However, I prefer Phallic overall, and probably would not buy the RBL at full price if I owned Phallic already.
1. Phallic is less expensive ($14 to RBL's $18). And Sephora is more likely to have sales than RBL, which means you may get it for even less.
2. Phallic gives more product (.5 oz to RBL's .4 oz.)
3. In my opinion, Phallic prettier than Under the Stars. It's deeper, more eye-catching, and way more arresting.
But Under the Stars has a more unique base shade, and the formula is better than Phallic's. I mean...Phallic's formula is no slouch, but Under the Stars is more controllable and better pigmented.
So which would you rather have?
Fluorescent light, no flash.
I don't get sun for very long (it's 5:30 and already pitch black outside), so I couldn't get proper bottle pictures. Sorry!
Sunlight, no flash.
L-R: Phallic, Under the Stars, Phallic, Under the Stars.
Sunlight, no flash.
L-R: Phallic, Under the Stars, Phallic, Under the Stars
Sunlight, no flash.
L-R: Under the Stars, Phallic
Sunlight, no flash.
L-R: Under the Stars, Phallic
When I was making up my RBL list, I was on the fence about Under the Stars. I already owned Phallic, and when I checked swatches side by side, they looked pretty much the same. But thankfully, that's definitely not the case, as these polishes look absolutely nothing alike. I think the pictures make them look a bit more similar, but in person, even Stevie Wonder would be able to tell them apart. Under the Stars' base color is dustier, greener, and much closer to teal than Phallic's vibrant, jewel-toned, navy. And Phallic's shimmer is larger, lighter, and far more visible than Under the Stars', especially under lower lighting conditions.
So yes...someone would be justified in owning both. However, I prefer Phallic overall, and probably would not buy the RBL at full price if I owned Phallic already.
1. Phallic is less expensive ($14 to RBL's $18). And Sephora is more likely to have sales than RBL, which means you may get it for even less.
2. Phallic gives more product (.5 oz to RBL's .4 oz.)
3. In my opinion, Phallic prettier than Under the Stars. It's deeper, more eye-catching, and way more arresting.
But Under the Stars has a more unique base shade, and the formula is better than Phallic's. I mean...Phallic's formula is no slouch, but Under the Stars is more controllable and better pigmented.
So which would you rather have?
P.S. Has anyone else noticed blogger acting kind of funky? My formatting is all off...there are these random gaps and spaces. :(
