Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   You get what you pay for, unless it's a $27 bottle of Chanel nail polish that is lower in quality than a $2 store brand   (consumerist.com) divider line 42
    More: Fail, store brand, pharmacy, nail salon  
•       •       •

4171 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 May 2014 at 6:54 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-30 04:16:48 PM  
You perhaps don't get what you pay for, but you pay for what you deserve....
 
2014-05-30 04:31:19 PM  
FTFA: The top choice among polishes with one-step application was Sally Hansen Complete Salon Manicure. Despite the name, it does not include a professional manicurist in the bottle. They checked.

This being a Consumerist article, I'm not certain whether this was written sarcastically.
 
2014-05-30 04:36:11 PM  
Can we just redlight this article instead of constantly changing the publish date?
 
2014-05-30 06:58:23 PM  

haemaker: Can we just redlight this article instead of constantly changing the publish date?


This
 
2014-05-30 07:05:33 PM  

haemaker: Can we just redlight this article instead of constantly changing the publish date?


Nope...
 
2014-05-30 07:25:07 PM  
Glad to see they corrected the article that they were mistaken when they said the 27 dollar was was "exceptionally smelly' too
 
2014-05-30 07:26:32 PM  
Most of my stuff is Sally Hansen Hard as Nails with the second most common being Wet and Wild. All of it is $2-3 per bottle. With what I do for a living and for hobbies nothing lasts more than 3 days or so, anyway. Most of that expensive stuff is either no better looking than the cheap stuff or all too sparkly. I'll stick with the cheaper stuff, thanks.
 
2014-05-30 07:31:44 PM  
B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier? Inquiring minds want to know! Also, I volunteer for the study.
 
2014-05-30 07:34:41 PM  

Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier? Inquiring minds want to know! Also, I volunteer for the study.


As do I... starting with testing 50-year-aged Scottish single-malts.
 
2014-05-30 07:38:16 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Most of my stuff is Sally Hansen Hard as Nails with the second most common being Wet and Wild. All of it is $2-3 per bottle. With what I do for a living and for hobbies nothing lasts more than 3 days or so, anyway. Most of that expensive stuff is either no better looking than the cheap stuff or all too sparkly. I'll stick with the cheaper stuff, thanks.


I actually use nail polish for one of my hobbies - resin jewelry. The polish has to last forever, but, since it's covered in resin, there's no way in hell I'm paying for the expensive stuff. I also love the Sally Hansen stuff.
 
2014-05-30 07:43:12 PM  

Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier?


As a rule, yes, up to the $30 point or so. This is because barrel aging causes the ethanol to remove more chemicals from the wood and or the efforts of a blender to make it smoother by combining several whiskeys.

After $30, the whiskey is being sold as a straight commodity with pure supply and demand. There's X bottles in the world, Y bottles being requested, and P dollars expected in profit per profit. X/Y+P= the price. This can get anywhere from $31 to $300,000
 
2014-05-30 07:57:50 PM  
I am a huge fan of the Sally Hansen Complete Salon Manicure. Essie has lots of fun seasonal colors, but I feel like it's harder to apply an even layer.

Clinique semi-recently revived their nail polish line from 10+ years ago. My mom got me a few of them for Christmas, and they are great, although probably twice as expensive as Sally Hansen or Essie. It just doesn't chip, despite my best efforts. Clinique can do no wrong in my eyes, though, so I am probably biased in my assessment.

/extreme makeup enthusiast
//spent two hours in Ulta on Monday, looking at all the great stuff and basking in the joy of being surrounded by so much makeup all at once
///I have a problem
 
2014-05-30 08:01:21 PM  

Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier? Inquiring minds want to know! Also, I volunteer for the study.


Wine isn't, at least.
 
2014-05-30 08:10:18 PM  

doglover: Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier?

As a rule, yes, up to the $30 point or so. This is because barrel aging causes the ethanol to remove more chemicals from the wood and or the efforts of a blender to make it smoother by combining several whiskeys.

After $30, the whiskey is being sold as a straight commodity with pure supply and demand. There's X bottles in the world, Y bottles being requested, and P dollars expected in profit per profit. X/Y+P= the price. This can get anywhere from $31 to $300,000


Well, chemically speaking even past 30$ a bottle, it's the same (close enough setting aside flavors etc.), but the real kick is, with all things, the mental factor. People make more expensive things taste better, mentally, because they wouldn't be more expensive if they weren't better therefor they are better so they are more expensive.

See it all the time with real blind wine/vodka tastings.
 
2014-05-30 08:23:38 PM  

kroonermanblack: doglover: Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier?

As a rule, yes, up to the $30 point or so. This is because barrel aging causes the ethanol to remove more chemicals from the wood and or the efforts of a blender to make it smoother by combining several whiskeys.

After $30, the whiskey is being sold as a straight commodity with pure supply and demand. There's X bottles in the world, Y bottles being requested, and P dollars expected in profit per profit. X/Y+P= the price. This can get anywhere from $31 to $300,000

Well, chemically speaking even past 30$ a bottle, it's the same (close enough setting aside flavors etc.), but the real kick is, with all things, the mental factor. People make more expensive things taste better, mentally, because they wouldn't be more expensive if they weren't better therefor they are better so they are more expensive.

See it all the time with real blind wine/vodka tastings.


Pretty much. Like the Penn and Teller ep where they fooled people with cheap wine with a fancy label. Ditto for water. I imagine cosmetics are the same. Shampoo is just surfactants, and nothing can revitalize hair, since it's dead.
 
2014-05-30 08:27:02 PM  

Fano: kroonermanblack: doglover: Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier?

As a rule, yes, up to the $30 point or so. This is because barrel aging causes the ethanol to remove more chemicals from the wood and or the efforts of a blender to make it smoother by combining several whiskeys.

After $30, the whiskey is being sold as a straight commodity with pure supply and demand. There's X bottles in the world, Y bottles being requested, and P dollars expected in profit per profit. X/Y+P= the price. This can get anywhere from $31 to $300,000

Well, chemically speaking even past 30$ a bottle, it's the same (close enough setting aside flavors etc.), but the real kick is, with all things, the mental factor. People make more expensive things taste better, mentally, because they wouldn't be more expensive if they weren't better therefor they are better so they are more expensive.

See it all the time with real blind wine/vodka tastings.

Pretty much. Like the Penn and Teller ep where they fooled people with cheap wine with a fancy label. Ditto for water. I imagine cosmetics are the same. Shampoo is just surfactants, and nothing can revitalize hair, since it's dead.


www.memeboat.com
 
2014-05-30 08:37:44 PM  
My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.
 
2014-05-30 09:18:16 PM  
This reminds me of my friend who got suckered into the Essential Oils racket.. She's constantly trying to sell insanely expensive bottles of oils and claiming that cure all sorts of ailments.  She has like kits and kits of these stupid oils she spends absurd amounts of money on.
 
2014-05-30 10:17:16 PM  

wildcardjack: My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.


Yeah, but you can buy the same $15 wallet for $55 in a lot of places. Which is what people should be aware of.
 
2014-05-30 10:20:55 PM  
I bought my own nail gel kit once. Came with a "primer" of some sort to make the gel stick better. Worked miracles for polish too. Sally Hensen stayed on and unchipped for almost three weeks with it.
 
2014-05-30 10:40:53 PM  

zarker: I bought my own nail gel kit once. Came with a "primer" of some sort to make the gel stick better. Worked miracles for polish too. Sally Hensen stayed on and unchipped for almost three weeks with it.


Why did you put primer in quotes?

Nail "polish" should be in quotes, because it's actually a paint not an abrasive compound.
 
2014-05-30 10:52:05 PM  

doglover: zarker: I bought my own nail gel kit once. Came with a "primer" of some sort to make the gel stick better. Worked miracles for polish too. Sally Hensen stayed on and unchipped for almost three weeks with it.

Why did you put primer in quotes?

Nail "polish" should be in quotes, because it's actually a paint not an abrasive compound.


Because I don't remember exactly what the kit called it
 
2014-05-30 11:18:42 PM  
I honestly didn't know people still used that shiat. Well, I guess I did because I bought some white nail polish to accent the stamping on my Beretta PX4 storm...but I didn't realize people actually used them for the intended purpose.

/I don't notice women's fingernails
//The wife doesn't use them, not that I'd notice anyway
 
2014-05-30 11:54:52 PM  

Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier? Inquiring minds want to know! Also, I volunteer for the study.


wildcardjack: My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.


With actual boots, it barely works. The very best stuff I know of in the way of the work boots and motorcycle boots I use, run a little over $400. I'll get about 3 years out of them before needing a rebuild. The rebuild is $200- $250 depending on how bad I managed to fark them up. I can get them rebuilt twice before they get unsalvageable. So 9 years, about $900.  9 years of wearing $110 pieces of Chinese shiat is $990. The difference in cost is 1.11% a year. Not to mention that you end up needing 2 pairs of boots, because when they go out for rebuild, they don't come back tomorrow, and you can't show up at a construction site in your socks. The $400+ boots surely do look a little spiffier, though.
 
2014-05-31 03:00:58 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier? Inquiring minds want to know! Also, I volunteer for the study.

wildcardjack: My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.

With actual boots, it barely works. The very best stuff I know of in the way of the work boots and motorcycle boots I use, run a little over $400. I'll get about 3 years out of them before needing a rebuild. The rebuild is $200- $250 depending on how bad I managed to fark them up. I can get them rebuilt twice before they get unsalvageable. So 9 years, about $900.  9 years of wearing $110 pieces of Chinese shiat is $990. The difference in cost is 1.11% a year. Not to mention that you end up needing 2 pairs of boots, because when they go out for rebuild, they don't come back tomorrow, and you can't show up at a construction site in your socks. The $400+ boots surely do look a little spiffier, though.


Re...build?

In my world, it's re-soled. I've had boots for twenty+ years that got re-soled four or five times. Re-soling costs less than you quote. WAY LESS. Unless you're one of THOSE suckers.

But you totally missed the point wildcardjack was making. Go read the actual Vimes theory of boots. And understand the context.
 
2014-05-31 03:26:07 AM  
From a 'scientific' point of view I'm interested to know whether they randomised the fingers the varnish was applied to. Because if all the dollar store varnish went on the little fingers and all the chanel stuff went on the index fingers it's not surprising it didn't last as long. Most varnish chips within a couple of days on my index fingers because I tend to fold them under while typing, and use them to do up zips and stuff with my super handy thumbs, which also chip more frequently.

In case anyone asks, 'Scientific' because while there's a lot of science in nail varnish, I'm not convinced much science was applied to these trials.
 
2014-05-31 05:14:42 AM  
Huge fan of deborah lippmann polish. Expensive and worth it. Looks amazing.
 
2014-05-31 05:51:53 AM  

dittybopper: You perhaps don't get what you pay for, but you pay for what you deserve....


Precisely.

Two people walk into a car dealership. One pays list price, one negotiates the price. One got the thing for less than the other so how did either "get what they paid for?".

I've bought ersatz Moleskines and seriously, they're as good as Moleskines but cost a quarter of the price. The reason Moleskines cost 4 times as much is all that bull about how Hemingway and Picasso used them.

The cosmetics industry? If you're buying Chanel or one of those names, a lot of the cost is marketing, advertising and that some woman is there selling it to you rather than it being on a shelf. You're paying for all that stuff that isn't making the product intrinsically better.
 
2014-05-31 06:48:37 AM  
Most nail salons keep a lot of Essie and O.P.I. polishes on hand - there's a reason for that. They want color that will stick so clients don't blame their manicurists. They also have a great selection of colors. Essie colors run about $8 a bottle, so mid-range.

That said, I'd like to know more about the methodology of the testing. Did all the testers have more or less the same length nails? Do they do the same kind of work? How many of them wash dishes by hand? These are all factors that affect the staying power of color. Also, 10 testers isn't all that many.
 
2014-05-31 07:30:15 AM  

Angelcatkthx: From a 'scientific' point of view I'm interested to know whether they randomised the fingers the varnish was applied to. Because if all the dollar store varnish went on the little fingers and all the chanel stuff went on the index fingers it's not surprising it didn't last as long. Most varnish chips within a couple of days on my index fingers because I tend to fold them under while typing, and use them to do up zips and stuff with my super handy thumbs, which also chip more frequently.

In case anyone asks, 'Scientific' because while there's a lot of science in nail varnish, I'm not convinced much science was applied to these trials.


As I noted before, they originally called the Chanel "extremely stinky" but were in error and it was another one so I think the scientific accuracy may be the same as a Jr high girl sleepover leading to a science project done at the last minute, or a hen party. I like consumer reports, but I feel that they don't do as well when it comes to intangibles
 
2014-05-31 10:40:48 AM  

Fano: Angelcatkthx: From a 'scientific' point of view I'm interested to know whether they randomised the fingers the varnish was applied to. Because if all the dollar store varnish went on the little fingers and all the chanel stuff went on the index fingers it's not surprising it didn't last as long. Most varnish chips within a couple of days on my index fingers because I tend to fold them under while typing, and use them to do up zips and stuff with my super handy thumbs, which also chip more frequently.

In case anyone asks, 'Scientific' because while there's a lot of science in nail varnish, I'm not convinced much science was applied to these trials.

As I noted before, they originally called the Chanel "extremely stinky" but were in error and it was another one so I think the scientific accuracy may be the same as a Jr high girl sleepover leading to a science project done at the last minute, or a hen party. I like consumer reports, but I feel that they don't do as well when it comes to intangibles


It was the Consumerist article that mixed up the two, not the original Consumer Reports study.
 
2014-05-31 11:18:07 AM  

dittybopper: You perhaps don't get what you pay for, but you pay for what you deserve....


This; also:

media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-31 12:23:53 PM  
The cheap brands often have formaldehyde and toluene which I am allergic to. I find great polishes in the midrange. Essie is my favorite but Sally Beauty Supply has some nice ones in their store brand too that are almost as cheap as the least expensive drugstore brands. They have 99¢ mini polishes that are fun to play with (and don't have the allergens).
 
2014-05-31 01:17:37 PM  
I don't wear nail polish (it makes my nails feel weird and I can't be bothered to do the up keep to have them looking nice) but my friend would often get me to paint her nails. She uses Essie and butterLONDON polishes. Essie for the cheap every day wear, Butter for when she's going someplace nice (or just wants British Racing Green nails). Both brands are formaldehyde-, toluene-, and DBP-free. Both brands seem to last quite a while when applied correctly.
 
2014-05-31 02:03:12 PM  

doofusgumby: forgotmydamnusername: Fano: B-b-but is more expensive whiskey tastier? Inquiring minds want to know! Also, I volunteer for the study.

wildcardjack: My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.

With actual boots, it barely works. The very best stuff I know of in the way of the work boots and motorcycle boots I use, run a little over $400. I'll get about 3 years out of them before needing a rebuild. The rebuild is $200- $250 depending on how bad I managed to fark them up. I can get them rebuilt twice before they get unsalvageable. So 9 years, about $900.  9 years of wearing $110 pieces of Chinese shiat is $990. The difference in cost is 1.11% a year. Not to mention that you end up needing 2 pairs of boots, because when they go out for rebuild, they don't come back tomorrow, and you can't show up at a construction site in your socks. The $400+ boots surely do look a little spiffier, though.

Re...build?

In my world, it's re-soled. I've had boots for twenty+ years that got re-soled four or five times. Re-soling costs less than you quote. WAY LESS. Unless you're one of THOSE suckers.

But you totally missed the point wildcardjack was making. Go read the actual Vimes theory of boots. And understand the context.


What didn't I understand? The Theory of Boots appears to be that people who are able to buy higher quality goods experience lower long term costs. Another way the rich get richer. TFA runs rather counter to that, doesn't it? Sometimes the rich are just being taken. I'm merely pointing out that IME, the savings in the specific situation it's named after are quite minor. Maybe a pair of boots lasts you longer, but I tend to beat my boots up pretty badly. They suffer things like holes worn through the toes, places where stitching fails, etc.
 
2014-05-31 02:35:53 PM  

Angelcatkthx: From a 'scientific' point of view I'm interested to know whether they randomised the fingers the varnish was applied to. Because if all the dollar store varnish went on the little fingers and all the chanel stuff went on the index fingers it's not surprising it didn't last as long. Most varnish chips within a couple of days on my index fingers because I tend to fold them under while typing, and use them to do up zips and stuff with my super handy thumbs, which also chip more frequently.

In case anyone asks, 'Scientific' because while there's a lot of science in nail varnish, I'm not convinced much science was applied to these trials.


You can look up plenty of blog reviews that show the same thing, either alternating which polish is on which nail or doing one hand one week, the other hand the next. Cheap polishes do at least as well as expensive ones. The ONLY reason to pay for an expensive nail polish is if they have a color you can't find cheaper somewhere else. Most, you can find a replacement. Some of the more complicated glitter polishes are hard to duplicate, and some very precise colors. I have MAC Vintage Vamp (brownish vampy red) that I haven't found a dupe for, but I hardly use it because it chips like farking crazy. It just will not stay on well, it doesn't apply well.. It IS very pretty. But it never gets used.

Meanwhile Sinful Colors is a farking dream to apply. Two fast-drying coats and it's opaque (takes several coats of MAC, and it's very gloppy and slow to dry). Chipping isn't bad at all.

Right now my only expensive one that I'd rebuy is Julep's Estelle (really gorgeous textured black holo glitter). And I'd like to try some of Sephora's crazy Formula X glitters.

Lady Indica: Huge fan of deborah lippmann polish. Expensive and worth it. Looks amazing.


There are actually a lot of Deborah Lippmann dupes out there if you don't mind a few minutes of Google to find them.
 
2014-05-31 02:54:06 PM  

Nogale: Most nail salons keep a lot of Essie and O.P.I. polishes on hand - there's a reason for that. They want color that will stick so clients don't blame their manicurists. They also have a great selection of colors. Essie colors run about $8 a bottle, so mid-range.

That said, I'd like to know more about the methodology of the testing. Did all the testers have more or less the same length nails? Do they do the same kind of work? How many of them wash dishes by hand? These are all factors that affect the staying power of color. Also, 10 testers isn't all that many.


They use those brands because they're perceived as being good quality. Quality difference between expensive and cheap cosmetics is not at all what most people assume. Saying this as a reformed expensive makeup addict: the main reason people think expensive brands are better is because of the packaging and price. The variation between quality exists within brands and at every price point. Wet N Wild even has some damn good shiat these days (their little $3 brow kit is awesome), and some crap (I've heard the shadows are still hit and miss, but with a lot less miss these days). I have a Too Faced eye pencil from forever ago that is still inoffensive (not exciting, but adequate), but the compact of setting powder was basically unusable from day 1. And I tried my farking damnedest to make it work because it was adorable. But, nope. Not happening.

If you go to a nail salon and pay for a manicure with polish brands you know are well respected, and it chips, you'll probably blame yourself or the manicurist and not the polish. If you know enough about nail polish that you KNOW it was just bad nail polish that made it chip, you probably know enough about nail polish to bring your own color, do your own nails, or get that fancy gel shiat that's supposed to be indestructible.
 
2014-05-31 02:59:35 PM  
doloresonthedottedline: ...as a reformed expensive makeup addict...

I should also say, not very reformed. There's a product that's basically the exact same thing as Smashbox's Photo Finish Primer ($16 for a half ounce, I think): Monistat Anti-Chafing Gel ($7 for 1.5 ounces). Good shiat, cheap, works the same, more practical packaging. I've gone through two tubes over the years since switching with no problems. And yet I'm PROBABLY going to buy Maybelline's Baby Skin Pore Eraser next, which is ALSO pretty much the same (dimethicone gel, basically), ONLY because I'm sick of seeing an ugly Monistat tube in my makeup bag, and Maybelline has totally farking beaten my brain into submission lately with their cute packaging and decent selection of pale foundations.
 
2014-05-31 05:33:21 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: What didn't I understand? The Theory of Boots appears to be that people who are able to buy higher quality goods experience lower long term costs. Another way the rich get richer. TFA runs rather counter to that, doesn't it? Sometimes the rich are just being taken. I'm merely pointing out that IME, the savings in the specific situation it's named after are quite minor. Maybe a pair of boots lasts you longer, but I tend to beat my boots up pretty badly. They suffer things like holes worn through the toes, places where stitching fails, etc.


With a lot of today's goods, the quality of even the fairly cheap stuff is good, and that's because of automation. You aren't paying for craftsmen to make watches, you're paying for people to design machines to make good watches. They're often really expensive people, but spread across millions of watches, that extra cost is tiny.

Cars is the other example. It used to be that a Merc made some sense. It was so well made that if you could bear the initial cost, the long life of one would pay for it. But today, a Toyota will last as long and be as reliable.

It's generally worth avoiding the cheapest of the cheap. Get a £30 Swatch instead of a no-name watch for £20. But other than that, it'll tell time as well as a Seiko or a Rolex.
 
2014-05-31 06:27:00 PM  

wildcardjack: My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.


My $5 wallet from Walmart lasted me nearly 16 years.

It's ready for retirement now. I'm thinking about mounting it on a plaque. It's lasted longer than the sundress I had when I was 16 (which I keep bc it still fits).

How nice does a wallet need to look, anyway? You think people are checking it out when what they are really doing is seeing what it contains.
 
2014-05-31 09:01:40 PM  

vicioushobbit: wildcardjack: My $55 wallet, made from Italian leather in Canada, is noticeably nicer than the $15 ones made in a Mumbai sweatshop.

Sometimes the Vimes Theory of Boots holds true.

My $5 wallet from Walmart lasted me nearly 16 years.

It's ready for retirement now. I'm thinking about mounting it on a plaque. It's lasted longer than the sundress I had when I was 16 (which I keep bc it still fits).

How nice does a wallet need to look, anyway? You think people are checking it out when what they are really doing is seeing what it contains.


Well, I keep having to open my wallet. You know, for people who still look good in a sun dress they got when they were 16.
 
2014-05-31 10:17:24 PM  
william poundstone blew the lid off perfume being 2 cents worth of ingredients in biggest secrets
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report