508 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS shadows, conventional eye shadows still outnumber the new types by at least five to one in terms of brands available. Whatever the defects of these new eye shadows, it is worth concentrating on their solution rather than continuing to produce the defective greasy eye shadows. The most dismal approximation of reality to illusion is to be found in liquid eye liner, so dismal in fact that many women have reverted to pencils, block mascaras or even foundation make-up in an attempt to provide a more satisfactory way of drawing a line on the eyelid. From experiences in the paint industry, and from nail enamels in our own field, the selection of a correct viscosity of fluid for brush application ought to have been assured. But whereas viscosities of most nail enamels are in the region of 300 to 400 centipoises, the viscosities of eye liners range from below 100 centipoises to over 50,000 centipoises. Moreover, wide variations in vis- cosity are not only encountered between one brand of eye liner and another, but often between different shades of the same brand. Drawing a well- defined line on the eyelid with a brush is not an easy task, and if there are wide variations in product consistency, it is virtually impossible. Too thin a liner will run down the lashes and leave smudgy edges, whereas the very thick liners will not flow out evenly to give a smooth finish. Furthermore, the high alcohol levels characteristic of some eye liners, not only produce the rapid drying desired, but owing to the high solvent phase volume result in considerable shrinkage of the final film on the lids this gives an uncomfortable feeling, often described by women as "sewn up eye lids". Finally, and most serious of defects, eye liners lack the necessary flexibility and adhesion to survive the estimated 40,000 blinks of the eyelid in the course of the normal wearing time. It is not uncommon for the film to break up into a mosaic of cracks or even for whole sections of the line to flake off but it should not be necessary for a woman to carry around a bottle of eye liner and a brush for touch-up purposes. Other make-up items could be examined in a similar manner, e.g. face powders which change shade on the skin and rouges which are difficult to shade off these also tend to display basic technical defects. It is therefore necessary to seek an explanation for the fact that make-up preparations are generally less satisfactory than specialities, assuming that it is basically no more difficult to make good lipsticks or eye cosmetics than to make good depilatories or hair lacquers. One of the possible reasons is that technical specialists tend to attach too little importance to the aesthetic aspects of their products. With few exceptions they are not involved in actually using coloured make-up and the irritation felt by the user of a "bitty" lipstick, running eye shadow or flaking eye liner is not directly experienced, There appears to be a similar lack of appreciation of the aesthetic importance of colour-true, stable make-up. The lipstick crayon, the eye shadow stick and

MODERN COSMETICS--ILLUSION AND REALITY 509 the pot of eye shadow are often ends in themselves, to be judged solely in comparison with other crayons, sticks and pots, whereas the real end-point is the creation of more attractive women. To quote a well known writer: "Too many scientists are interested in colour photography and Hi-fi rather than in art and music". Another important factor is the problem of devising satisfactory develop- ment and formulation testing for these products. Unfortunately, make-up does not lend itself to the laboratory test procedures developed for specialities, and the only meaningful test is application on the face. Most of the standard test procedures used in the cosmetic industry for the consumer evaluation of products have serious limitations, especially when used for testing make- up items and better tests will certainly have to be devised. Best known is the comparatively large representative panel of women chosen, for example, by the advertising or market research agency. This type of panel is anonymous as far as the laboratory is concerned and can only be used for the testing of final or near-final formulations, through the medium of replies to a standard questionnaire. By its very nature, this will only discriminate between gross differences in products and its only real value is to confirm an answer which is already known. Most cosmetic houses also test products through their own beauty salons which appears to be an obvious and helpful procedure, but since the products will obviously be linked with the house name, only testing of the near-final formulations is possible. Even in this respect, the tests can be quite mis- leading as both users and method of use are untypical with respect to the main sales market. Application of the products is carried out by beauticians whose skill and experience will overcome most defects of the product whilst the clientele of the salon will, in general, consist of women in the older age group whose opinions on colour, texture, etc., will otten be quite different from the average. A more useful panel may be set up inside the cosmetic house, consisting of factory and office personnel in the proportions which more or less constitute the market of the particular house. There are difficulties in having such a panel under direct laboratory control, the most important being the natural reluctance of heads of departments to allow time off for staff during the day to test cosmetics under laboratory supervision. As a result the cosmetics are usually tested at home. The main criticism of all these types of test procedures is that the testing of the products is either partly or wholly divorced from the laboratory. The type of test procedure which is most fruitful for the development of better cosmetics is one in which highly trained and experienced girls take the place of laboratory apparatus. The panel should preferably be small in number so that it can function easily as part of the laboratory service and the cosmetic likes and dislikes of each panellist are well known. For example,