Hardly exceptional even at the very best of times, Chocolate Whipstick merely provides decent preventative moisturization with average
endurance, best used under lip colour as a softening base. The consistency of this thick, emollient balm (which you should be careful
not to over apply given that it does tend to leave an unsightly brownish-beige tint, hence my preference for using it under lip colour as
opposed to allowing it to stand on its own) can be a bit unpredictable. The majority of the pots I've owned from both Lush NA and Lush
UK have provided a pasty, gritty finish, while the pot I received from Lush Japan is nothing short of creamy fudge icing goodness, with
the delicious flavour of a Terry's Chocolate Orange. And as usual, the tin pots themselves are quite fiddly, I must say. Because the
lid's lip comes down so low over the pot's base, you're left with very little anchorage to grab onto when it comes time to unscrew it. (My
advice: put the pot in your palm, place one palm flatly over the other and then twist with your wrists. To close the pot, simply snap it
shut.) On the other hand, you could get your hands on a limited edition pot from Japan, as I was lucky enough to do (thanks to Lush's
super generous and thoughtful Auntie Pamela). They sold Chocolate Whipstick in a small gift box for Valentine's Day 2005, complete
with a wonderfully manageable slide-on lid that surprisingly stays put even when forced to make the most tempestuous of journeys.
(Click HERE to see photos of this wonderful Japanese tin, which Lush should strongly consider using for all of their Lip Balms.)
endurance, best used under lip colour as a softening base. The consistency of this thick, emollient balm (which you should be careful
not to over apply given that it does tend to leave an unsightly brownish-beige tint, hence my preference for using it under lip colour as
opposed to allowing it to stand on its own) can be a bit unpredictable. The majority of the pots I've owned from both Lush NA and Lush
UK have provided a pasty, gritty finish, while the pot I received from Lush Japan is nothing short of creamy fudge icing goodness, with
the delicious flavour of a Terry's Chocolate Orange. And as usual, the tin pots themselves are quite fiddly, I must say. Because the
lid's lip comes down so low over the pot's base, you're left with very little anchorage to grab onto when it comes time to unscrew it. (My
advice: put the pot in your palm, place one palm flatly over the other and then twist with your wrists. To close the pot, simply snap it
shut.) On the other hand, you could get your hands on a limited edition pot from Japan, as I was lucky enough to do (thanks to Lush's
super generous and thoughtful Auntie Pamela). They sold Chocolate Whipstick in a small gift box for Valentine's Day 2005, complete
with a wonderfully manageable slide-on lid that surprisingly stays put even when forced to make the most tempestuous of journeys.
(Click HERE to see photos of this wonderful Japanese tin, which Lush should strongly consider using for all of their Lip Balms.)
(Limited Edition for Christmas 2005, 2006) – With a clever name like Eggsnog (eggnog + "snog" which is British slang for smooching
or "making out"), you'd think that this product could do no wrong. Or at least you hope it could. However, quite often what is supposed
to be an eggnog scented and flavoured Lip Balm for Christmas is not so. And being that quality is so unpredictable with this product, it
is often quite difficult to know which you'll wind up with. At its very worst, Eggsnog can taste like a pat of unsalted butter. At its very best,
it can bowl you over with stimulating, eye-opening lemon and cinnamon to the point where it becomes a perfume unto itself. To make
matters worse, this Lip Balm is unusually prone to melting to the liquidity of water not only when carried in one's pocket, but also when
carried around in one's handbag. Fortunately, Eggsnog's tin pot is never at risk of leakage when this happens. But as soon as you
twist off the lid, half of its contents spill all over you, leaving you stained and reeking for the remainder of the day. All this hassle for a
Lip Balm whose moisturizing properties may be quite decent, yet whose scent often outlasts a single conditioning application.
or "making out"), you'd think that this product could do no wrong. Or at least you hope it could. However, quite often what is supposed
to be an eggnog scented and flavoured Lip Balm for Christmas is not so. And being that quality is so unpredictable with this product, it
is often quite difficult to know which you'll wind up with. At its very worst, Eggsnog can taste like a pat of unsalted butter. At its very best,
it can bowl you over with stimulating, eye-opening lemon and cinnamon to the point where it becomes a perfume unto itself. To make
matters worse, this Lip Balm is unusually prone to melting to the liquidity of water not only when carried in one's pocket, but also when
carried around in one's handbag. Fortunately, Eggsnog's tin pot is never at risk of leakage when this happens. But as soon as you
twist off the lid, half of its contents spill all over you, leaving you stained and reeking for the remainder of the day. All this hassle for a
Lip Balm whose moisturizing properties may be quite decent, yet whose scent often outlasts a single conditioning application.
Lush describes this as their coffee scented Lip Balm, which is supposed to "taste like Italian espresso with two sugars and remind us
of Milan in springtime." But really, it could be better described as nut and spice flavoured coffee -- the kind you get at Starbucks where
they've added so much flavoured syrup that you can barely taste the coffee anymore. Because what you ultimately get from Happy Talk
is a delicious whiff of hazelnuts, almonds, and walnuts mixed with cinnamon and clove -- more coffee cake than coffee. (As evidence, I
submit to the Lush courts Exhibit "A": coffee is nowhere to be found on the list of ingredients.) Plus, Happy Talk is not all that
"flavoured" for better or worse: think along the lines of walking into your mum's kitchen after she's spent the day making "hands off"
coffee cakes for a bake sale: they smell fabulous, but you can't taste them (unless, of course, you're interested in feeling your mother's
wrath. But if your mum is anything like my mum, you know that your life would depend on limiting your homemade cake fetish to
nothing more than a brief inhalation and a private drool). Such is life: so we can't have our cake and eat it, too. What else is new?
Besides, the real disappointment lies in the fact that though Happy Talk is a wonderfully smooth, creamy balm, its moisturizing effects
are unreasonably short-lived, requiring frequent reapplication -- and this from a cheap, fiddly tin that can be an absolute nuisance to
handle. But much credit to Lush: they'll evidently soon be doing away with these tins, having finally come to their senses. Yes, they've
recently decided to go back to their user-friendly screw-lidded clear plastic pots. Can I get an "Allelujah!" over here, please?
of Milan in springtime." But really, it could be better described as nut and spice flavoured coffee -- the kind you get at Starbucks where
they've added so much flavoured syrup that you can barely taste the coffee anymore. Because what you ultimately get from Happy Talk
is a delicious whiff of hazelnuts, almonds, and walnuts mixed with cinnamon and clove -- more coffee cake than coffee. (As evidence, I
submit to the Lush courts Exhibit "A": coffee is nowhere to be found on the list of ingredients.) Plus, Happy Talk is not all that
"flavoured" for better or worse: think along the lines of walking into your mum's kitchen after she's spent the day making "hands off"
coffee cakes for a bake sale: they smell fabulous, but you can't taste them (unless, of course, you're interested in feeling your mother's
wrath. But if your mum is anything like my mum, you know that your life would depend on limiting your homemade cake fetish to
nothing more than a brief inhalation and a private drool). Such is life: so we can't have our cake and eat it, too. What else is new?
Besides, the real disappointment lies in the fact that though Happy Talk is a wonderfully smooth, creamy balm, its moisturizing effects
are unreasonably short-lived, requiring frequent reapplication -- and this from a cheap, fiddly tin that can be an absolute nuisance to
handle. But much credit to Lush: they'll evidently soon be doing away with these tins, having finally come to their senses. Yes, they've
recently decided to go back to their user-friendly screw-lidded clear plastic pots. Can I get an "Allelujah!" over here, please?
Honey Trap is, in my opinion, one of Lush’s all-time best lip balms, in part because it’s also the most decadent. It has a super-rich
base of mega-moisturizing shea butter, soothing almond oil, and white chocolate (composed of sugar, cocoa butter, milk, and vanilla)
and a deliciously dessert-sweet honey toffee, vanilla and orange flavour and fragrance. Honey Trap does have its minor flaws,
however. First, its consistency can be quite unpredictable, often becoming rather thick, hard, and dry in texture, making it a wee bit
difficult to apply. When this happens, rapidly rub your finger over the top of the pot in order to generate heat via friction to soften the
surface just enough so that you can smooth the tiniest amount onto your lips (and truly, given how rich this lip balm is, a tiny amount is
all you need). Some also complain about the “new” metal tins that house Lush’s lip balms. (Until late 2004, Lush lip balms were sold
in sturdy, convenient clear plastic screw top jars.) These tins' aluminium lids twist off, but not with great ease; the lid drapes down over
the sides of the pot leaving little space for your fingers to grab onto the pot’s base. The key is to place the pot in your hands, using your
palms to twist the lid off. To close it, simply snap it back on, no twisting necessary. Once you figure that out, you're pretty much good to
go unless you manage to dent the tin (an easy thing to do), in which case, all bets are off. And considering that metal is quite quick to
absorb heat, it's recommended that you don't carry these tinned Lip Balms in your pocket, as the oils are prone to liquefying. All in, it’s
my opinion that if Lush would just change the pot and tweak Honey Trap’s recipe ever-so-slightly to consistently make it “wetter” and
more spreadable, you’d be left with a flawless lip balm that you’d be hard-pressed not to become addicted to (and guiltlessly so, being
that a single pot of Honey Trap lasts for ages, giving you quite a big bang for your buck).
base of mega-moisturizing shea butter, soothing almond oil, and white chocolate (composed of sugar, cocoa butter, milk, and vanilla)
and a deliciously dessert-sweet honey toffee, vanilla and orange flavour and fragrance. Honey Trap does have its minor flaws,
however. First, its consistency can be quite unpredictable, often becoming rather thick, hard, and dry in texture, making it a wee bit
difficult to apply. When this happens, rapidly rub your finger over the top of the pot in order to generate heat via friction to soften the
surface just enough so that you can smooth the tiniest amount onto your lips (and truly, given how rich this lip balm is, a tiny amount is
all you need). Some also complain about the “new” metal tins that house Lush’s lip balms. (Until late 2004, Lush lip balms were sold
in sturdy, convenient clear plastic screw top jars.) These tins' aluminium lids twist off, but not with great ease; the lid drapes down over
the sides of the pot leaving little space for your fingers to grab onto the pot’s base. The key is to place the pot in your hands, using your
palms to twist the lid off. To close it, simply snap it back on, no twisting necessary. Once you figure that out, you're pretty much good to
go unless you manage to dent the tin (an easy thing to do), in which case, all bets are off. And considering that metal is quite quick to
absorb heat, it's recommended that you don't carry these tinned Lip Balms in your pocket, as the oils are prone to liquefying. All in, it’s
my opinion that if Lush would just change the pot and tweak Honey Trap’s recipe ever-so-slightly to consistently make it “wetter” and
more spreadable, you’d be left with a flawless lip balm that you’d be hard-pressed not to become addicted to (and guiltlessly so, being
that a single pot of Honey Trap lasts for ages, giving you quite a big bang for your buck).
(Reformulated and repackaged in 2005) – Until late 2004, Lush's Lip Balms (at that time being limited to Lip Service and Lite Lip)
alternated between being housed in small glass and plastic jars, all with convenient screw top lids. (And before that, back in the days
when Lush couldn't afford much in the way of packaging, they were sold in a scrappy sleeve of foil, which I can't imagine was much fun
to deal with!) At the close of 2004, however, Lush launched Chocolate Whipstick Lip Balm in a flat, user-unfriendly tin. Several months
later, despite the myriad problems this new packaging clearly presented, Lush decided to run with it, not only launching of a series of
"new" tinned Lip Balms, but also simultaneously reformulating and repackaging their "classic" balms. In Lip Service's case, this
reformulation consisted of all but two ingredients going completely untouched; Lush merely removed both castor oil (a vegetable oil
derived from the castor bean) and lanolin alcohol (derived from the fleece of sheep), both having been used as highly effective
emollients. In their place, all that was added was an additional dash of already present apricot kernel oil to create the "new" vegan,
hypoallergenic Lip Service balm, still sold to this day. The more tangible result: while Lip Service's flavour was not changed, the
consistency and convenience of packaging most certainly was. The "original" Lip Service was a rich, creamy concoction of thicker
substance, occasionally going on with a whitened finish that required additional blending. Because Lip Service is such a rich
combination of cocoa butter, shea butter, beeswax, and olive oil, with the additional heavier, richer emollients of yore an even lighter
application was required to achieve intense, long-lasting moisture. Otherwise, the issues that come with the "new" Lip Service simply
did not exist. For example, the "old' Lip Service did not have a tendency to completely liquefy in a heat conductive tin. In fact, the only
complaint that could be made about the original Lip Service's packaging is that its jar was deeper but also slightly narrower, with
increasingly little room for your finger to move as the product itself became diminished with use (this problem being more noticeable
to those with longer fingernails). Additionally, it did not readily suffer the "drying out" of the "new" poorly packaged Lip Service (whose
lid seems to lack air-tightness), especially with castor oil famously maintaining its fluidity at even the most extreme temperatures.
Plus, thanks to a more effective seal, the original Lip Service's fragrance was not so quick to disappear. A lovely tangerine scented
balm that lent intense flavour to lips, it also could be applied to elbows, heels, and in fact, any small areas on the body that suffered
from dryness. This made Lip Service an excellent cure-all with the additional benefit of a long-lasting aromatherapeutic pick-me-up
from toning, stimulating tangerine, benefits you could most certainly count on from the point of purchase right up until the expiration
date had been reached two years later.
alternated between being housed in small glass and plastic jars, all with convenient screw top lids. (And before that, back in the days
when Lush couldn't afford much in the way of packaging, they were sold in a scrappy sleeve of foil, which I can't imagine was much fun
to deal with!) At the close of 2004, however, Lush launched Chocolate Whipstick Lip Balm in a flat, user-unfriendly tin. Several months
later, despite the myriad problems this new packaging clearly presented, Lush decided to run with it, not only launching of a series of
"new" tinned Lip Balms, but also simultaneously reformulating and repackaging their "classic" balms. In Lip Service's case, this
reformulation consisted of all but two ingredients going completely untouched; Lush merely removed both castor oil (a vegetable oil
derived from the castor bean) and lanolin alcohol (derived from the fleece of sheep), both having been used as highly effective
emollients. In their place, all that was added was an additional dash of already present apricot kernel oil to create the "new" vegan,
hypoallergenic Lip Service balm, still sold to this day. The more tangible result: while Lip Service's flavour was not changed, the
consistency and convenience of packaging most certainly was. The "original" Lip Service was a rich, creamy concoction of thicker
substance, occasionally going on with a whitened finish that required additional blending. Because Lip Service is such a rich
combination of cocoa butter, shea butter, beeswax, and olive oil, with the additional heavier, richer emollients of yore an even lighter
application was required to achieve intense, long-lasting moisture. Otherwise, the issues that come with the "new" Lip Service simply
did not exist. For example, the "old' Lip Service did not have a tendency to completely liquefy in a heat conductive tin. In fact, the only
complaint that could be made about the original Lip Service's packaging is that its jar was deeper but also slightly narrower, with
increasingly little room for your finger to move as the product itself became diminished with use (this problem being more noticeable
to those with longer fingernails). Additionally, it did not readily suffer the "drying out" of the "new" poorly packaged Lip Service (whose
lid seems to lack air-tightness), especially with castor oil famously maintaining its fluidity at even the most extreme temperatures.
Plus, thanks to a more effective seal, the original Lip Service's fragrance was not so quick to disappear. A lovely tangerine scented
balm that lent intense flavour to lips, it also could be applied to elbows, heels, and in fact, any small areas on the body that suffered
from dryness. This made Lip Service an excellent cure-all with the additional benefit of a long-lasting aromatherapeutic pick-me-up
from toning, stimulating tangerine, benefits you could most certainly count on from the point of purchase right up until the expiration
date had been reached two years later.
Of all Lush’s lip balms, Lip Service tends to leave one of the smoothest finishes on your lips, sans any amount of pastiness. And
because Lip Service is such a rich combination of cocoa butter, shea butter, beeswax, and olive oil, you don’t need a heavy application.
A little Lip Service goes an incredibly long way, with one pot lasting you ages. Problem is, while Lush’s “new” Lip Balm tins can be a
nuisance to handle (especially when compared to than their original glass and plastic pots as reviewed above), they also don’t seem
to be entirely air-tight. And so, this already dense Lip Balm has a tendency to get even harder over time, leaving you to have to rub your
finger quite briskly to get just enough oil for even the lightest application until eventually, it becomes a seemingly staled rock. And
considering how long one pot will last you (we’re talking 1 to 2 years), this progressive hardening is simply inevitable, occurring long
before the product’s expiration date. Additionally, while Lip Service is touted as a tangerine scented/flavoured balm, truth be told, you
really only get a delightful whiff of tangerines immediately after application -- sans any lickable flavour at all, as over time, this scent
increasingly fades as the product dries out in its shoddy tin. And that’s a real shame, because not only is the idea of a natural, shea
buttered aromatherapeutic tangerine flavoured lip balm nothing short of fabulous, but its an idea that Lush had once acted upon with
far greater, more enduring results.
because Lip Service is such a rich combination of cocoa butter, shea butter, beeswax, and olive oil, you don’t need a heavy application.
A little Lip Service goes an incredibly long way, with one pot lasting you ages. Problem is, while Lush’s “new” Lip Balm tins can be a
nuisance to handle (especially when compared to than their original glass and plastic pots as reviewed above), they also don’t seem
to be entirely air-tight. And so, this already dense Lip Balm has a tendency to get even harder over time, leaving you to have to rub your
finger quite briskly to get just enough oil for even the lightest application until eventually, it becomes a seemingly staled rock. And
considering how long one pot will last you (we’re talking 1 to 2 years), this progressive hardening is simply inevitable, occurring long
before the product’s expiration date. Additionally, while Lip Service is touted as a tangerine scented/flavoured balm, truth be told, you
really only get a delightful whiff of tangerines immediately after application -- sans any lickable flavour at all, as over time, this scent
increasingly fades as the product dries out in its shoddy tin. And that’s a real shame, because not only is the idea of a natural, shea
buttered aromatherapeutic tangerine flavoured lip balm nothing short of fabulous, but its an idea that Lush had once acted upon with
far greater, more enduring results.
 |