Slim lipsticks, somewhere between regular lipsticks and lip pencils in width, have existed for decades (look no further than this Maybelline commercial from 1980). ColourPop’s original Lippie Stix, NARS’ now-discontinued Pure Matte Lipsticks, Hourglass’s Confession Ultra Slim Lipsticks, and Kevyn Aucoin’s Unforgettable Lipsticks all fall into this category. Slim lipsticks appeal to customers because of their elegance, portability, and ease of application—and because women have been brainwashed since early childhood to associate slimness with desirability.

However, there’s a drawback to slim lipsticks from the customer’s perspective. They generally cost far more per ounce than full-sized lipsticks do, even when they come from the same brand. And as the cost of ingredients continues to rise, lipsticks, like Upper East Side residents on Ozempic, just keep losing weight. In the last year or two, we’ve seen the Locked Kiss and Powder Kiss Velvet Blur formulas from MAC, the Powermatte and Afterglow Sensual Shine lipsticks from NARS, and the Cream Supreme lipsticks from the recently rebranded MAKE Beauty. The trend hasn’t spared the drugstore, either: Revlon, Maybelline, and L’Oreal have all hopped on the slim-stick bandwagon. I guess heroin chic really is back.

Most slim lipsticks are marketed as offering something more to justify the increased cost per ounce: a formula that’s more matte, or more pigmented, or more glossy, or more moisturizing than your average lipstick. (Hence the Maybelline Ultimatte shade names, all of which begin with “more.”) Of course, there’s no reason why any of those improvements need to come in slim-stick form. But the implication is that you’re getting quality over quantity—nicer ingredients, longer-lasting effects, or whatever.

MAC’s Powder Kiss Velvet Blur Slim Sticks, for instance, are two-thirds the size of the original Powder Kiss lipsticks and, at $28, cost $2 more. According to MAC, Powder Kiss is a “weightless moisture-matte lipstick that delivers a blur of soft-focus colour.” Great! How to improve on such an amazing formula? Well, Powder Kiss Velvet Blur is a “moisture-infused lipstick that provides 12 hours of on-trend, mega-bold colour and ultra-weightless wear in a single, velvet-soft swipe.” So Powder Kiss is weightless, but Powder Kiss Velvet Blur is ultra-weightless. Powder Kiss “delivers a blur,” but Powder Kiss Velvet Blur delivers a velvet blur. Got that?

It’s hard for me to believe that slim lipsticks are anything but an excuse for brands to sell a smaller product at a higher price point. But if I were immune to trends, I wouldn’t still be updating a nine-year-old beauty blog. And, as the owner of sixty-two lipsticks, I seldom finish a shade before it expires, meaning that I care more about a lipstick’s absolute price than about its price per ounce. So I suppose it was inevitable that before the end of 2023, I should find myself in possession of two slim lipsticks: MAC Powder Kiss Velvet Blur in Wild Sumac and Maybelline Color Sensational Ultimatte Slim Lipstick in More Cedar. I bought both of these back in August, before going on a six-week no-buy.

Both formulas seem to have been created for the same purpose: to deliver lightweight, matte, blurred, almost-opaque pigmentation. Here they are swatched in natural light (indirect sunlight on top, direct on the bottom); Wild Sumac is on the left and More Cedar on the right. As you can see, the MAC is slightly sheerer than the Maybelline:

In honor of my Cheap Thrills series (if you can call one post a series), let’s start with the more affordable option. The Maybelline Ultimatte lipsticks cost $10 for 0.06 oz, or almost 2 grams. The standard Maybelline ColorSensational lipsticks (below) are about $7.50 for 4.2 grams, so the Ultimattes give you less than half the usual amount of product for 133% of the usual cost.

More Cedar was my second attempt to nail down that Elaine-in-the-soup-restaurant shade, and I think I succeeded: it’s the color of tobacco (or of a steaming bowl of chili), a little vampier than your usual ’90s brown shade. Unfortunately, my only photo of the virgin tube was taken in the car:

More Cedar is similar in color to NYX Chocolate Mousse, but as I noted in my review of that lipstick, Chocolate Mousse’s formula prevents me from ever wearing it at full strength. More Cedar is darker and cooler-toned than MAC Paramount, but lighter and warmer than MAC Antique Velvet.

Here’s a lip swatch with Paramount on the left and More Cedar on the right. Do I need both? Not really, but I do find that they evoke different moods when I wear them—Paramount feels more ’90s-daytime and More Cedar more ’90s-evening.

Maybelline’s own messaging around this formula is somewhat confusing. Its website touts the Ultimatte lipsticks as “more matte, more color intensity, and lightweight feel*,” though the asterisk, so far as I can tell, doesn’t connect to anything—I mean, I did a search for asterisks on the page and found only that one. (Never mind the grammatical travesties in that sentence.) The page goes on to describe the “lightweight blurring formula made with high-intensity pigments,” which sounds like an oxymoron: when I read “blurring,” I imagine a slightly sheer formula, not a “high-intensity” one. All these waffling words and unresolved asterisks leave me with a burning question: more matte and more intense than what, bitch?

More than the standard Maybelline matte lipstick, presumably. Having tried and not loved the older formula, I can confirm that the Ultimatte formula is indeed different: waxy instead of powdery, though the classic old-lady-floral scent remains. The new formula does deliver a more matte look than the original does, but the so-called blurring effect is nowhere to be seen: More Cedar looks almost fully opaque (and fairly patchy) when I apply it straight from the tube, unless I apply a very thin layer and blend it out with my finger. In fact, it’s far easier to achieve a blurred look with the cheaper, more siliconey Maybelline mattes.

Here’s More Cedar in sheered-out form and in opaque form, evened out with my finger both times:

Since the very matte finish can emphasize imperfections in my lips (which are getting ever drier as the temperature drops), I prefer to apply More Cedar over a bit of lip balm for a shinier finish, à la Drew Barrymore in 1998:

Even over lip balm, though, there’s no denying that this formula leaves my lips somewhat dry and doesn’t feel as lightweight as advertised. On the plus side, unlike the silicone-heavy Maybelline mattes, it stays where it’s placed and doesn’t fade too much as long as I don’t eat anything.

And here it is on my face! I took the photo below in the morning, when the natural light was cooler-toned, and it made More Cedar look almost plum on me:

But in warmer afternoon sunlight, it looked more, well, cedar:

Now for Wild Sumac, which has become my most-worn lipstick this fall. I have several similar berry-pink shades, but the slim bullet and lightweight formula make Wild Sumac an easy choice when I’m heading out the door. It’s opaque enough to make an impact, but not so opaque that it screams LIPSTICK! It flatters my coloring and goes with most of my outfits. I don’t have to fiddle with it or blur it out with my finger, as I have to do with More Cedar. It just works. Say what you will about MAC’s ridiculous advertising copy, this brand knows how to make a good lipstick.

As you can see below, Wild Sumac is a slightly cooler-toned and sheerer version of another favorite of mine, MAC All Fired Up.

Here it is on my lips:

As you might expect from a lightweight, semi-sheer lipstick, Wild Sumac doesn’t have an extraordinary wear time: it wears nicely for several hours and withstands light drinking, but always has to be touched up after eating. However, I don’t mind reapplying my lipstick occasionally, especially when it’s as easy as with Wild Sumac (which I can apply without a mirror). My one objection to this formula is that, like the Maybelline formula, it’s somewhat drying, more so than MAC’s regular Matte or even Retro Matte lipsticks. It glides on easily, but after a couple of hours, I can feel the moisture being sucked out of my lips. The colder weather probably has something to do with this, too, but MAC’s “moisture-infused” descriptor doesn’t feel accurate to me. Throughout my lipstick-wearing life, I’ve noticed that lightweight lipsticks, counterintuitively, tend to be more drying than thicker ones. I wonder why this should be the case.

Here I am wearing Wild Sumac on September 1, the day I started writing my novel. I’m wearing two layers here for more opacity—it builds up really nicely.

This formula works nicely as a blush, too, which I can say about very few lipsticks! Here I am wearing it on my cheeks and lips:

And because this post is already absurdly long, I might as well add some swatches of a few other shades in the Powder Kiss Velvet Blur line. Top: Peppery Pink. L-R: Wild Sumac, Love Clove, Wild Rebel. I would recommend this formula heartily and the Maybelline Ultimatte formula with some reservations.

Most of my writing energies this fall have been directed toward my novel, but I do plan to continue my Cheap Thrills series with some brief posts in the next couple of months—I need to get back in the habit of writing quicker, shorter pieces. Until then, enjoy the last of spooky season, which doesn’t end until Scorpio season does. I don’t make the rules.