A few Zoeva brushes

I got a few Zoeva brushes in the mail (105, 134, 222, 224, 227, 231), and I took a few comparison pictures before I washed them. I have a very edited (read, small) brush collection, but I hope these are useful anyway.

 

My first impression, without having used them yet, is pretty good. The brushes feel soft, they responded well to washing, and are now drying in shape. They came in individual rubber sleeves, the inside covers had slid all over the place as pictured, but the brushes where still in good shape.

224 looks a bit poor and blunt. If it is supposed to be a dupe of MAC 224 (which is one of my favourite brushes and in the comparison pictures), it doesn’t look promising, but I will judge after use.

134 is a bit smaller than I expected it to be (even though I googled plenty before I made my choice of brushes), it almost feels like a large eye brush rather than a face brush. I guess as “fusion” it can claim to be both. 105 looks fluffy, but actually feels pretty firm and pointed. I don’t have many face brushes, no highlighting type brushes, so I could only compare them to MAC 168 and 187 from a special edition travel set – I gather special editions sometimes leave much to be desired, but these are great and I use them a lot – they even have some product in the images. I also compared 134 to MAC 224 mentioned above because the shape is rather similar. I don’t do contouring or a lot of highlighting, but wanted a couple more face brushes to try new things out.

My 227 is slightly less domed than MAC 217, but still very similar. I use this brush a lot so it is good to have two.

I was really looking forward to 222. I have a small but probably sufficient collection of fluffy rounded brushes, but since I have large eyelids and sometimes like soft washes, I thought the larger 222 would be a good idea. I will know once I get to use it, but it has a nice size and shape, and a generous amount of fibres. I compared it to my fluffy brushes: an old, unmarked MUFE; an unmarked, relatively large Harlow which is very firm and not very soft (Harlow is the brush brand from a stage makeup shop in Barcelona called Gòtic); MAC 213 which is a classic; MUA E2 which is a bit meh; and an Essence “eyeshadow” brush which is actually pretty good for the price.

I hesitated to get 231 because I already have too many pencil type brushes, which I in fact do not use a lot. But everyone seems to love it, and the actual dupe for MAC 219 is 230 which is smaller, so I decided to give it a try. In the comparison picture I have Harlow 9 PC which is very soft and fluffy and has a pointed shape; Essence “crease” brush, which got a typo in the image ;P; Barbara Hofmann for Di, which is very stiff and pointy but not scratchy – synthetic; MUA E9, very small and synthetic like all MUA brushes; and MAC 219.

I will update once I get to use them for some time.

Advertisements

One Comment Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s