In June, I published a three part series on my experience with used cosmetic retailer, Glambot.
Overall, I was satisfied with the items I received. They are genuine, undamaged, and accurately depicted for the most part (and always accurately described). I was impressed by the level of care taken to package the items.
I hop on every now and then mostly to see if I can snag a good deal on a tub of MAC pigment (Rushmetal has me hooked), but have not made any additional purchases – either they haven’t listed one I’m interested in, or they had a listing but it was sold out, or the timing just wasn’t right for me.
In Monday’s makeup destashing post, I mentioned I was destashing a MAC lipstick (to Back2MAC) that I had purchased from them as a part of that haul — Cosmo, to be specific. Since I last used it, it has gone from MAC’s signature pleasant vaguely-vanilla scent to smelling like old, cheap crayons. It bums me out because I really dig the color (don’t let my infrequent use fool you – I don’t wear lipcolor daily). I didn’t think much of it – after all, Glambot procedures surely will not include carbon-dating a lipstick, and most packaging doesn’t have a date-stamp (though that would be really helpful, manufacturers!).
A reader pointed out that batch numbers of products certainly could (and perhaps should) be cross-referenced as part of Glambot procedures to ensure that a seemingly-good product wouldn’t be on the brink of expiration. I have reached out to Glambot to confirm their procedure for certifying such products before accepting/reselling them.
Once I hear back and have a solid answer regarding my Glambot procedure inquiry, I will be sure to post an update so you can have a better idea of the length to which Glambot goes to verify product age before resale. All of my other products from my Glambot haul are fine (including the other lipstick, which still smells of vanilla and happiness).