LashBlast Volume mascara claims to offer a patented volume-boosting formula and patent-pending brush that's supposed to make my lashes look super big. When the marketing hype is related to patent status, I'm really unconvinced. I'm assuming no major cosmetic company would put a product on the shelves without having applied for a patent. Without the patent, their intellectual property could be at risk. In other words, holding a patent or applying for a patent doesn't make a mascara special.
This review is going to be quick. LashBlast Volume does an okay job with the "volumizing," but no better than other mascaras I routinely use. I absolutely dislike the fat brush, which makes getting the corners and close to the eyelid difficult without touching my skin. It's definitely problematic if you prefer to apply mascara to your bottom lashes.
|mascara on the left, none on the right|
You can see in the images above, on the left are my lashes without makeup and on the right, with LashBlast Volume mascara. I don't have any eyeliner or shadow on in either picture. The mascara isn't brand new, so the clumping may not be typical. Using this regularly, I'd need to use an eyelash comb.
I'm also not a fan of the girthy container (whatever that's called), which is as if it were designed for men (my husband's explanation).
Once applied, it's not bad. My lashes are fuller, but not in a "wow" way. I'll keep this on hand, maybe in the downstairs bathroom for touchups, but it won't become my everyday mascara. For now, I'm sticking with my No7 mascara. For more information, you can see see my review of No7 mascara, or check out the Boots product page.
My next shopping trip will be to pick up makeup artist, Kerrin Birchenough's suggestion of L'Oreal Voluminous mascara, which retails for $8.95.
COVERGIRL fans may want to check out Anna Mae's current pick, COVERGIRL Professional mascara, available for $4.99 at Ulta.