COVERGIRL CLUMP CRUSHER VS CLUMP CRUSHER EXTENSIONS

T to B: Extensions wand, original Clump Crusher wand

Before you read on, please check out my review of the original Clump Crusher mascara. I'll be referring to it a lot during this post!

I bought the Covergirl Clump Crusher Extensions mascara because my original Clump Crusher is slowly but surely drying out. Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly usable, I just felt like the debut of the Extensions mascara was a golden opportunity to try something new before my original Clump Crusher completely dries out on me. Even I, a girl who loves the look you get from slightly dried out mascaras, can't get anything from a tube if I'm basically applying the Sahara desert to my lashes.

The Clump Crusher Extensions retails for $18.95AUD, the same price as the original CC. The similarities don't end there, however, because I swear I can hardly tell the difference between these two mascaras. If you can't be bothered reading this entire comparison/review, I'll summarise it for you now: if you already own the original Clump Crusher, save yourself the money and don't bother with the Extensions. Same goes if you purchased the Extensions and don't have the original CC.

For those of you who want to stick around and listen in reverence as I talk of the magical Covergirl mascaras, hello! Enjoy your stay; feel free to grab a beverage and some snacks. Is everyone settled? Great, let's get down to business.

Firstly, I'll compare what the Covergirl website has to say about the two mascaras:

Essentially, the CC Extensions is a 'one-up' on the original. As you can see, it makes the same promises as the original CC, but they are just worded differently. You are left with the impression that the CC Extensions is like the big sister of the original CC, this time with a more buildable formula. The new formula for the CC Extensions (which one could barely call new; it's so similar to the old one), does make for a more noticeable effect on the lashes when you build up a few layers. Other than that, I can't really tell the difference between the two. The newer formula seems to be a little bit thicker than the original, which I like. 

Both mascaras give decent volume and length, but neither are very dramatic. You can build them up with three coats to give you gorgeous lashes, but if you're after drama I'm not sure they're for you. The real magic of these mascaras is found in their equally amazing jobs at separating your lashes and preventing clumping. But, again, I can't really tell the difference. 

I honestly can't think what else to say, because everything I said in my original CC review seems applicable to the CC Extensions. I suppose, to summarise, I have to choose a favourite. If I'm being honest, I don't have one. Once both my original CC and CC Extensions run out/dry up, I'll probably repurchase the Extensions simply because it's newer. 

I'm sorry this review/comparison was so inconclusive, but I'd like to point out that that's not entirely my fault. The CC Extensions was incredibly underwhelming; not nearly the sellout success that the original was because it's too similar to it's predecessor to deserve much hype. It's not a bad mascara, it's just as amazing as the original–but, as a new & improved mascara, it's supposed to be better. It isn't.