The only radiance this product provides is from the mica it contains. Mica is a shiny mineral used in thousands of products claiming to brighten skin. Other than the cosmetic benefit you may see after applying this product and the beautiful jar packaging (it really is stunning) there isn't much reason to consider using this moisturizer. Keep in mind that pretty packaging and a shiny ingredient isn't skin care.
You do get UVA sun protection from the avobenzone it contains but it lacks octocrylene which is one of the ingredients that helps keep avobenzone stable. Also the SPF 15 is the minimum required for adequate sun protection, it has become standard amongst dermatologists to recommend higher SPF numbers to be sure you're getting enough sun protection (because most of us aren't applying enough sunscreen each day).
As far as moisturizing benefits are concerned this is nicely formulated for barrier repair ingredients and the urea provides exfoliation. However, it would have been far better with an array of antioxidants. A major disappointment is the jar packaging which won't keep the good ingredients in here stable.
Another drawback is the amount of fragrance this contains. Wafting aroma isn't skin care and in fact can cause irritation which is a problem for skin. (See More Info to find out why fragrance is a problem for skin). Overall this moisturizer has more drawbacks than benefits.
- Good amount of skin repairing ingredients.
- Too much fragrance and that's a problem for all skin types.
- Jar packaging won't keep the good ingredients stable.
- Contains fragrant plant extracts with minimal to no benefit for skin.
Irritation From Fragrance and Fragrant Oils
Daily use of products that contain a high amount of fragrance, whether the fragrant ingredients are synthetic or natural, causes chronic irritation that can damage healthy collagen production, lead to or worsen dryness, and impair your skin's ability to heal. Fragrance-free is the best way to go for all skin types. If fragrance in your skin-care products is important to you, it should be a very low amount to minimize the risk to your skin (Sources: Inflammation Research, December 2008, pages 558–563; Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2008, pages 124–135 and November-December 2000, pages 358–371; Journal of Investigative Dermatology, April 2008, pages 15–19; Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, March 2008, pages 78–82; Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, January 2007, pages 92–105; and British Journal of Dermatology, December 2005, pages S13–S22).
The fact that it's packaged in a jar means the beneficial ingredients won't remain stable once it is opened. All plant extracts, vitamins, antioxidants, and other state-of-the-art ingredients break down in the presence of air, so once a jar is opened and lets the air in these important ingredients begin to deteriorate. Jars also are unsanitary because you’re dipping your fingers into them with each use, adding bacteria which further deteriorate the beneficial ingredients (Sources: Free Radical Biology and Medicine, September 2007, pages 818-829; Ageing Research Reviews, December 2007, pages 271-288; Dermatologic Therapy, September-October 2007, pages 314-321; International Journal of Pharmaceutics, June 12, 2005, pages 197-203; Pharmaceutical Development and Technology, January 2002, pages 1-32; International Society for Horticultural Science, www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=778_5; Beautypackaging.com, and www.beautypackaging.com/articles/2007/03/airless-packaging.php).
Active Ingredients: Octinoxate 7.5 % Avobenzone 3.0 % Oxybenzone 3.0 %; Other Ingredients: Water, Glycerin, Butylene Glycol Isononyl, Isononanoate, Dimethicone, Cetearyl Glucosate, Pentylene Glycol, Butyl Stearate, Tridecyl Salicylate, Cetyl Ricinoleate, Cyclopentasiloxane, Narcissus Tazetta Bulb Extract, Tripratense (Clover) Flower Extract, Sodium Hyaluronate, Tocopheryl Acetate, Caprylyl Glycol, Cetearyl Dimethicone Crosspolymer Ethylhexyl Palmitate Glyceryl Stearate, Sodium PCA, Trehalose, Urea, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Lecithin, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide, Phospholipids, Polyphosphorylcholine Glycol Acrylate, Ammonium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate/VP Copolymer PEG-100 Stearate, PEG-8 Laurate, Steareth-20, PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate, Polyquaternium-51, Styrene/Acrylates Copolymer, Hexylene Glycol, Isododecane, PEG-8, Xanthan Gum, Nylon-12, Disodium EDTA, Silica Dimethyl Milyate, Parfum/Fragrance, Butylphenyl Methynpropional, Citronellol, Limonene, Linalool, Benzoic Acid, Methylparaben, Phenoxyethanol, Potassium Sorbate, Sorbic Acid, Chlorhexidine Diglucosante, Chlorphenesin, Mica, Titanium Dioxide
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.