Hearting is down to shine: I do like a good shine on the lips. This used to manifest itself in a very Jersey frost; I am not ashamed, and indeed, tend to seek out a nice, silvery-pink on occasion. This pink, though — as ever in Giorgio Armani-land, rather soullessly designated as 520 — is pure, pretty shiny shine.

And in less moody lighting:

The photos are getting weirder and weirder over here — but I think this shows the gloss to great effect. {I was sick of seeing my schnozz take up, like, the whole feckin’ frame.}

I have a love/hate relaysh with the clicky-closure on this yoke. Sometimes, it just doesn’t seem to *snap* into place the way it ought. I then get paranoid about it and fall into an OCD rabbit hole, making sure it’s shut. Hmmm, that may be TMI. But be aware — it would be a darned shame to spend €25.50/£23.50/$29 on a gloss that ended up smeared all over your hairbrush. Ick.

Coverage is comprehensive, it doesn’t feel sticky, it stayed well put, and it doesn’t have a fragrance, which makes a nice change.

Seriously, though, Giorgio, do better with these names — hey! Maybe I’ll just give it a go!

…

Hmmm, this is harder than I thought. Well, I dub the centre gloss Effervescence because: Champagne. Oh, okay, and the last can be Sophisticate. Ha! I had already done this work, above!

…

Stuck on the auld 520, which is starting to sound plausible in all its numerical splendour. Blush, maybe? Eh, that doesn’t embody the prettiness, and the pinkness, though. Psychedelic Furry? {I know who’ll get that…} I’m going to go with Lustre, and feel dissatisfied.

Soz, Giorgio, all is forgiven.

***