Guys, we haven’t done a lipstick review for a while, so let’s do a quick little rundown of Marc Jacobs Je T’Aime 238 Le Marc Lip Creme Lipstick (damn that was a mouthful).
I know, look at me being all fancy, but I actually bought this in a Sephora gift set a while ago and only just remembered I have it. So while mine is a mini size, it still won’t change the performance of the product.
Let’s cut right down to the main vein…
So it’s the usual suspects that act help the lipstick go on and both bind ingredients and help oil and water-soluble products work together.
There are also other ingredients that could be of interest such as:
Polyethylene – a polymer
Aluminum starch octenylsuccinate – an anti-caking ingredient
Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacylapidate-2 – a lanolin alternative
Squalane – while MJB is cruelty-free and squalane can be a human and animal by-product (mainly sharks), it’s unclear where their squalane comes from.
There’s also olive oil, candelilla wax, shea butter, babassu seed oil, avocado, jojoba oil, vitamin E, vitamin c, sea buckthorn oil and a synthetic peptide.
Possibly the only ingredient that is worth noting is Polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. It is the most common plastic resin used in the world and is used it so many different types of hair care and makeup products for different reasons. In terms of makeup (in this case, lipstick) it can thicken the formulation and dries as a thin coating.
Below I’m adding PET’s “Safety” section from Wikipedia:
It should be noted that this is only pertaining to possible endocrine disruptions of water within heated PET bottles, not the effects of heated PET in lipstick (or even makeup) formulations, and there hasn’t been any real strong evidence and that more research is needed.
As endocrine disruptions are something I have to actively look out for when it comes to my own health, I’m not really worried about this in a lipstick as it would be incredibly minute, especially compared to plastics housing food. The only time I am concerned about is PET and other plastics is when they’re an environmental issue, such as PET-made microbeads in skincare that leech through to our oceans.
I have never struggled so fucking much to get an accurate product photo and swatch of a product before. Je T’Aime is advertised as a “rum-raspberry” and I think the raspberry is very true to my skin tone but I don’t see the ‘rum’ connection.
This is the most accurate swatch I could create which doesn’t really show the depth of the shade. The closest picture I can find to show you what it looks like is A Red Lip And A Nude Shoe’s swatch of Shanghai Suzy Dusty Rose swatch. Temptalia describes it as a “warm coral with a satin finish“, which I agree with as well, as long as you remember it’s a warm, darker coral.. raspberry.. colour.
The top two are from my camera, the bottom one from my iPhone. Shitty quality, yes, but it actually took the most accurate colour of the shade because of the white balance on my camera. Can you see why I was losing my damn mind???
After all this searching and fixing photos and the most accurate photo came from my absolutely not new iPhone and the first picture I took.
If you’re wondering why I’m being so particular about showing you the colour, this is why-
As you can see from Marc Jacobs Beauty, Net-A-Porter, Sephora and Temptalia swatches for the same shade of lipstick, it is wildly different and not just a slight monitor issue. Why do you think I just used a closed-lid stock photo as the main picture!
There isn’t really any excuse for having incredibly different tube colours, but when it came to swatching, almost every site I visited had a different shade.
At first I was really confused as to why it would be like this, and aside from lighting and editing issues as well as the odd terrible photo examples out there. A lot of swatch examples, like Temptalia’s are always accurate and seemed to have been done as best as they could be. The only conclusion I could come up with is that Je T’Aime is one of those examples of a shade looking different on people because of their different skin tone and colour. From a photographer/blogger’s standpoint is very fucking annoying, but from a customer’s standpoint … is kind of annoying when you’re trying to see how it’ll look on you, but once you see it on you get a feeling it’s a custom shade for you, which is really cool. It’s a lipstick that will look unique to you.
Performance & Packaging
Aside from the colour and the shade, the pigmentation is really good and leaves a light stain, which tells me it’s more of a longer-wear lipstick thanks to one of the red dyes used.
The lipstick feels really comfortable on. I really like the satin finish because it makes lips look moisturised and doesn’t sink into lip lines. There’s also no feathering and doesn’t smudge too much
I also really appreciate it not having any scent because even though I don’t mind and do like a light scent in lipstick (like MAC) it’s not really needed.
The black, oval packaging is classy and sleek with Marc Jacobs on one side with a magnetic closer, something I personally really like.
It’s… a lipstick. After all my searching and reapplying and keyboard-tapping it’s.. still a lipstick. The ingredients are great but still usual lipstick ingredients. I do appreciate that Marc Jacobs Beauty isn’t tested on animals, but going towards no animal by-products would be a real winner in a lot of customers eyes.
At the end of the day we all know that we’re paying for Marc’s name, which for me personally, doesn’t make me want to go spend $43 of my Australian money on it. That is heartbreaking to say because I really love the Marc Jacobs brand. There are other fashion-designer-turned-makeup-brands out there and MJB is possibly the most reasonable, but it’s still $43 for a lipstick, even if it looks amazing on me.
Cost: $43AUD, $30USD, $38CAD, £24
Would recommend: No.
Good For: Marc Jacobs fans or anyone who wants one luxury lipstick.
Would Try Again?: Marc Jacobs Beauty? Yes. These range of lipsticks? No.