Recently found NARS and tossed my LM. The LM does nothing of the redness around my nose, streaks when I blend it in, and I just cannot get a good color match
The NARS (Groenland) is perfect, covers enough but not everything and sinks into my skin like a dream. I did try the Alaska which is very very similar in color to Groenland, but seems to have more of a yellow base
If you can't get a good color match no TM CC BB or foundation is going to look good on you.
NARS seems to have the best colors.
answered 2 weeks, 5 days ago
I'd totally go with the NARS TM. I have the one from Laura Mercier also and it looks like nothing at all on my skin. Nars provides really excellent (though still natural and undetectable) coverage and, unless I'm mistaken (it's a while since I even used LM), it has a higher level of SPF.
answered 1 year ago
I prefer Laura Mercier's tinted moisturizer, hands down. I own both, and the NARS formula is very watery and provides significantly less coverage in my opinion. It also was not moisturizing and accentuated any dry flakes I had. The color selection is poor and I did not see any improvements in hyperpigmentation. Personally I opted for Laura Mercier, but I know several people who prefer NARS. It all depends on personal preference and skin type. I think NARS would be best suitable for those who want to enhance their already perfect skin and LM for those who have troubled acne prone skin like me.
answered 1 year, 4 months ago
(Long Island, NY)
The NARS one provides better (fuller) coverage compared to the Laura Mercier; however, it being a tinted moisturizer, the coverage is still rather light; it's on the sheer side of medium. Finish is definitely 'dewy,' as they say. I have combination skin and sometimes I don't set it w/powder because I love the beautiful finish so much. The LM is thicker in consistency and has a flat, almost matte finish, which looks unnatural when compared w/NARS'. Healthy, youthful skin is not flat but indeed 'glowy' – there's a freshness and radiance to it (just have a look at a little child's face) – this NARS product is appropriately named. I mean, everyone's preferences are different, but the NARS beats the LM in my book, no contest.
answered 3 years, 11 months ago
I didn't care for the LM TM because I felt it did nothing for me. I have moderate redness in my cheeks and occasional breakouts around my jaw line and when I applied the LM, I felt like I was throwing money away because I didn't feel like it covered anything and I was unable to build with it. The NARS is really nice and buildable - it covers up my redness remarkably and I am able to build on my blemishes without it looking cakey or feeling heavy. It is very light weight also. The only thing I would caution on is if you are looking for more "glowy/dewy skin" or not. I feel like the LM is intended to be more natural looking, while the NARS gives your skin a really nice glow - not a shine, but a glow. Don't get me wrong, the NARS looks natural, but it does give your complexion a "glow", while the LM just kind of looks blah. I highly recommend the NARS!
answered 4 years, 3 months ago