Charlotte’s Magic Cream Light

[unpaid/sample/affiliate/ad] I’ve had a little bit of time to play with this lighter version of Charlotte’s Magic Cream and think it’s pretty much a suit-all but favours drier skin types.

Charlotte’s Magic Cream Light

As I’ve said before, this brand is good at formulating effective products – they surround it in so many debatable claims though that I think sometimes the credibility is lost. At the heart of this is Abyssinian Oil which has a high erucic acid content, an Omega fatty acid that can give both skin and hair a glossy sheen. I’d argue with the description that it has a ‘veil like’ texture – initially, you know it’s there and it feels like an SPF cream (it is in fact SPF30) but does settle to a lighter feel in the end.

Charlotte’s Magic Cream Light

A definite plus is that it protects against blue light as well as UVA/UVB – if you’re in front of a device all day, it’s something to consider. I can’t actually find a full ingredient list (it was on the box but I threw it away so I know it’s my own fault) so it’s hard to do much more of a breakdown other than to say it is softening (but not, in my view particularly mattifying), certainly hydrating and my skin likes it which makes me say that I’d lean to recommending for older complexions. There are a lot of good things about it and I’m a fan of peptides which don’t get the attention they should (again, particularly for older skin) but it’s not as light as you might expect from the name. It IS lighter than the original Magic Cream though so if that is something that suits your skin well, this would act as a good ‘day’ version. Once again, love the product, do not like the marketing. It’s HERE, non-affiliate HERE, for £75.


Discover more from British Beauty Blogger

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Have your say

8 responses to “Charlotte’s Magic Cream Light”

  1. Carrie

    Hey BBB. Introducing a bit of science re: the whole ‘blue light’ schtick which marketeers are plugging. Lab Muffin pulled out some science / facts. https://lab-muffin.com/blue-light-computers-phones-damage-skin/

    1. Jane Cunningham

      Great! Thanks for this – I love Lab Muffin so hope everyone takes a moment to read it and draw their own conclusions x

  2. Cal

    Excellent review! Thank you very much, I learned a lot.
    This wouldn’t be my scene, as many of the ingredients (on the website) put me off, but I was fascinated by your pointing out its leaning towards drier skin. The name suggested the opposite to me when I’ve read about it. Just shows how one should always look beyond assumptions. The claims are indeed awful though. Miraculous skin in 4 weeks? Only if you’ve been parching it beforehand, à la devious No. 7 serums trial method.
    Your explanation about Abyssinian oil was what really surprised me though…I know Holland and Barrett stock products containing this, but I’ve always assumed it was a marketing thing, just something like almond oil trying to sound fancy and exotic ! The comparisons with argan oil, which I adore, leap to mind, but many are put off by the aroma (they’d be even more so, if they read how the best organic stuff is produced!) so maybe CT will spearhead a market in other African oils with this. I love thick and unctuous, so shall look out for some unprocessed Abyssinian oil.

    1. Jane Cunningham

      They don’t actually call it Abyssinian oil – they call it by its other name, Crambe oil. I don’t know why 🙂

      1. Cal

        Maybe it’s an international thing about plant names…..you see ‘rosa canina’ instead of rosehip, and so on. (That’s a really poor example!) Perhaps it’s called something else in other places.
        Certainly ‘Abyssinian’ isn’t universally recognised as meaning ‘Ethiopian’ these days, and might be an utterly bewildering term, and so perhaps the plant name is for very wide general use. Dunno though….hmmm.

        1. Jane Cunningham

          You could be right – Abyssinian is perhaps just a very outdated term.

  3. I loved Charlotte Tilbury for years but their insane marketing in recent years has really put me off the brand. They always have outrageous claims about certain % improvement in skin texture, and then you check the ingredients list and there are silicones or mica or something else that is helping to temporarily improve skin condition, which don’t really belong in skincare products anyways. I was such a huge fan of Charlotte Tilbury when the first set of core products came out, and even for a few years after when there were additions to the line, but now it just feels like they’re trying too hard. I still love the CT products in my current collection (I basically used their colour cosmetics pretty much exclusively for my wedding makeup), but I haven’t bought anything new from them in a while.

    1. Jane Cunningham

      It’s starting to remind me of Rodial – same spurious claims based on clever wording and not science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from British Beauty Blogger

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading