This specialty skin-care product is sold as a means of promoting longer, stronger lashes yet it does not contain a single ingredient known to improve lash growth, lash volume (thickness), or lash color. Taking a careful look at the claims reveals they remain in the cosmetics realm; they’re not actually stating your lashes will be longer or fuller. Instead, they’ll only “look lush, healthy, and revitalized”, which is strictly cosmetic.
The peptides in this lash growth product are not known or proven to promote lash growth or thickness—this isn’t a department store version of Latisse (a prescription drug product that really does grow longer, thicker, darker lashes and eyebrows) and isn’t worth considering over it or other lash-growth products that contain prostaglandin analogues. Research has shown that certain prostaglandin analogues are what prompt changes in the growth cycle of lashes, allowing them to grow and last longer before shedding and being replaced by a new lash. In contrast, there isn’t a shred of published research proving the plant extracts or peptides in Prevage Clinical Lash can do the same thing, or even come close.
In short, whether you have sparse lashes or eyebrows (Arden maintains this works for brows, too) this isn’t the product to buy. At best, this will make lashes and the skin along the lash line softer but the fragrance-free formula truly contains nothing extraordinary, exciting, or worth the cost. For about $60 more, you can get a prescription for Latisse, which we know works.
Available for the first time, this Clinically Tested formula is shown to reveal visibly longer, fuller, more beautiful looking lashes and brows in just 2 weeks.* Our exclusive triple peptide complex, supports lash's natural renewal cycle so they look lush healthy and revilalized- and your eyes appear younger than ever.
Water/Aqua/Eau, Butylene Glycol, Glycerin, Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract, Ascorbyl Palmitate, BHT, Camellia Oleifera Leaf Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Cucumis Sativus (Cucumber) Fruit Extract, Cyclohexasiloxane, Cyclopentasiloxane, Disodium EDTA, Disodium Phosphate, Ethylhexylglycerin, Hydrogenated Lecithin, Lecithin, Myristoyl Hexapeptide-16, Myristoyl Octapeptide-1, Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17, Panthenol, Propylene Glycol, Retinyl Palmitate, Sodium Hyaluronate, Sodium Phosphate, Tocopheryl Acetate, Triethanolamine, Chlorphenesin, Phenoxyethanol
Elizabeth Arden At-A-Glance
Strengths: Some excellent serums and a few noteworthy moisturizers; praiseworthy concealers; a handful of well-formulated makeup products including foundation, blush, eyeshadow, and lipstick.
Weaknesses: No products for those battling blemishes; several products whose sunscreen lacks sufficient UVA protection; most of the foundations with sunscreen fail to provide sufficient UVA protection; lackluster eye and brow pencils; some problematic lip color products; jar packaging weakens some otherwise great formulas.
Former nurse Elizabeth Arden was a pioneer in the beauty industry. At the turn of the 20th century, Arden began her legacy when she opened her first salon, with the now-familiar red door. Over the next several years she introduced new products and services to women unaccustomed to such choices, and almost single-handedly made it acceptable for modern women to wear makeup. And while Arden understood and met these beauty needs, she was also adept at self-promotion and packaging, helping to solidify the idea that what holds the product should be as beautiful as the woman who uses it. She was the front-runner in the cosmetics industry for quite some time, until another young go-getter by the name of Estee Lauder began her own empire—one that would eventually lead to the Elizabeth Arden line being almost an afterthought in the mind of many consumers.
Not only has Arden's image been diminished over the years due to odd distribution patterns (consumers were getting mixed messages as this prestige line began showing up in drug and discount chain stores), but also through their own formulary mistakes and seeming unwillingness to pay attention to current research. Given the history of this line and several outstanding products they've produced in the past, it's very frustrating that what's offered today is such a mishmash of good and bad, with a hefty dose of average. Arden still has several sunscreens that fall short by leaving out sufficient UVA protection. In contrast, Estee Lauder and the Lauder-owned lines have their sunscreen acts together and consistently impress by including other state-of-the-art goodies to amplify the environmental protection of their moisturizers.
Many of Arden's products also contain potentially problematic ingredients or are packaged in a way that puts the light- and air-sensitive ingredients at risk of breaking down shortly after the product is opened. Given Elizabeth Arden's (the woman) pioneering, innovative spirit, we can't imagine her being completely pleased with the state of her namesake skin-care line (Arden passed away in 1966). Having the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones as a spokesmodel for most of the early 2000s may have raised more interest in this brand than in years past, but a pretty face and eye-catching ads don't always translate to good skin care, as evidenced by the reviews on this site. There are some very impressive products in this line, but it's definitely one that demands careful attention to what you're buying lest you put your skin at risk.
For more information about Elizabeth Arden, call (800) 326-7337 or visit www.elizabetharden.com.
Elizabeth Arden Makeup
Cosmetics trailblazer Elizabeth Arden may have been single-handedly responsible for bringing modern makeup to American women (she opened the famous Red Door Salon in 1910 and formulated the first blush and tinted powders in 1912), but today's lineup of Arden makeup has far more disappointments than its pioneering namesake would have liked. Most of the Arden foundations with sunscreen either leave out the five prime UVA-screening active ingredients or because their SPF numbers are unnecessarily low. Either way, only one of the foundations with sunscreens can be relied on as your sole source of facial sun protection.
In contrast to the mostly disappointing foundations, you'll be pleased with what Arden offers for concealer, eyeshadow, lipstick, and mascara. Each of these categories has some brilliant products to consider, and they serve to prove, at least to a modest extent, that Elizabeth Arden makeup is not to be counted out just yet. The remaining products have little to extol, either because they are truly ineffective or because the competition has Arden beat by a mile. A continual bright spot for Arden is that their tester units are typically well organized and the colors are grouped so it's easy to zero in on what you like.
The Beautypedia and Paula’s Choice Research teams have one mission: To help you find the best products for your skin, whether they’re from Paula’s Choice or another brand. By combining efforts, we’re able to share scientific research and remain committed to the highest standards based on our decades of experience objectively reviewing thousands upon thousands of skincare and makeup formularies in all price ranges.
Beautypedia cuts through the hype to bring you product insights and recommendations you won’t find anywhere else!