Fake eyelashes. The clue's in the name isn't it? But that hasn't stopped millions of us from gluing the hairy wee blighters to our eyes in a bid to look more alluring.
Not content with the DIY option, we've also turned to beauty therapists up and down the land to painstakingly attach individual semi-permanent lashes to our lashline. What if there was an alternative? Good news - there is.
Fake eyelashes have their benefits: they definitely create impact, and they're perfect for bad taste parties - can you think of a better impromptu Hitler 'tache? I remember when I heard Katie Price wore three pairs and thought it was crazy, and within a year Eylure brought out a double layer lash range. Alternatively, the semi-permanent lashes are hard to beat, but - to dust off my beauty war cry - you get what you pay for, so expect to shell out at least £50 for a good set, and you'll need maintenance top ups after a couple of weeks. Like hair extensions, the over-use use of eyelash extensions in any form can cause traction hair loss, and you'll certainly not find anyone doing a Groupon for eyelash transplants.
I've noticed a worrying increase in mobile lash businesses offering bargain prices for this popular treatment on social media, a cause for concern because reputable salons are stringent about what products they use. If the most attractive element of a treatment is price, you'll measure its quality in how long results last without needing additional expenditure. This is why a certain portion of those offering cheaper lash treatments use stronger glue bought online, as it extends the period before top-up treatments are required, keeping their budget-conscious clientele happy.
Value for money it might be, but unregulated products right next to your eyes? I'll pass thanks. Nearly a decade later my nails are still trashed from patronising a nail bar that had student-friendly prices and super-strength space glue that could guarantee a full set of nails up to six weeks on. Ah, the folly of my youth.
So what about this lash lifeline I promised? When I first heard about fibre lash extensions I presumed they'd be a. messy, b. not as impressive as claimed and c. impossible to remove. Turns out I was wrong on all three counts. Cherry Blooms has just launched its Brush on Fibre Eyelash Extensions in the UK and USA this month, after massive success in their native Australia (it's claimed that the Duchess of Cambridge picked up a set on her last tour down under). The product was also in this year's Oscars gift bag, so the thought that John Travolta is rolling around his house pretending to know nothing about musical theatre and fluttering some meaty lashes had me sold.
The application isn't much more effort than a standard mascara. I applied around 20 strokes of a Transplanting Mascara Gel, and before this dried I grabbed the tube of fibres (which looks like black fluff) and applied around 15 strokes. The first coat lengthened my eyelashes much more than my normal mascara. At this point you can either seal the fibres with another coat of gel, or start the process again with more gel and fibres. I applied two generous coats of fibres, and I felt any more would venture into Daisy the cow territory, but with Halloween coming up it's good to know I have this option.
My newly lengthened lashes looked great, but when it was time to call it a night I was slightly apprehensive about removing them. Turns out all it takes is a light dab of warm water, a brief pause, and then they rub right off. It's even easier than removing mascara, and almost as quick as pulling a pair of falsies off. The product is suitable for contact lens wearers as the fibres are 100% natural and the gel seals them to the lashes so there's no irritation.
With a three-year shelf life, and each set containing a four-month supply, it's well worth the £39 price tag. Your eyelashes look much more realistic than fake lashes and it's far cheaper and quicker than individual extensions, plus it's a doddle to take off. Two thumbs up!
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article